Beta
×

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!

Online Ads Are More Dangerous Than Porn, Cisco Says

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the watch-what-you-click dept.

Security 110

wiredmikey writes "The popular belief is that security risks increase as the user engages in riskier and shadier behavior online, but that apparently isn't the case, Cisco found in its 2013 Annual Security report. It can be more dangerous to click on an online advertisement than an adult content site these days, according to Cisco. For example, users clicking on online ads were 182 times more likely to wind up getting infected with malware than if they'd surfed over to an adult content site, Cisco said. The highest concentration of online security targets do not target pornography, pharmaceutical, or gambling sites as much as they affect legitimate sites such as search engines, online retailers, and social media. Users are 21 times more likely to get hit with malware from online shopping sites and 27 more times likely with a search engine than if they'd gone to a counterfeit software site, according to Cisco's report (PDF). There is an overwhelming perception that people get compromised for 'going to dumb sites,' Mary Landesman, senior security researcher at Cisco, told SecurityWeek."

cancel ×

110 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

TFA got the probabilities backward (4, Informative)

phaunt (1079975) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759495)

The summary, and the Security Week article, write that "Users are more 21 times more likely to get hit with malware from online shopping sites than if they'd gone to a counterfeit software site".

Cisco's report says that "Online shopping sites are 21 times more likely to deliver malicious content than counterfeit software sites."

Those statements are not equivalent. Online shopping sites have many more visitors than counterfeit software sites, so they have more opportunity to deliver malware. The same goes for the factor of 27 for search engines.

Also, it's hard to check the factor of 182 for adult sites, since the report doesn't include that number, or in fact even the words "porn" or "adult".

Re:TFA got the probabilities backward (4, Insightful)

phaunt (1079975) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759499)

...and Slashdot's title for the story that "Online Ads Are More Dangerous Than Porn" takes it still a level further. It's certainly not what Cisco said.

Re:TFA got the probabilities backward (2)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759709)

Sure, but it's what we probably wanted to hear.

Now go tell it to the politicians and mention the children. Maybe the privacy-invading criminals finally get punished. I won't be holding my breath though.

Appropriate quote from Sir Winston Churchill:

'Statistics are like a drunk with a lamppost, used more for support than illumination.'

Re:TFA got the probabilities backward (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759899)

Slashdot "editor" utilises hyperbole in post title in click whore shocker!

More at 11, and tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that...

Re:TFA got the probabilities backward (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759757)

Where Cisco's wording is really ambiguous. Deliver may mean indeed as you interpret it, the total number of successful infections, it may also mean the chance that if you visit that site, it gets you infected, which indeed would be my interpretation of the wording Cisco uses.

And now I'd have to go read the report and look at the actual numbers and methodology they used, to figure out the actual meaning.

Re:TFA got the probabilities backward (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763607)

Those statements are not equivalent

They're completely equivalent. The "than if they'd gone to a counterfeit software site" part takes care of that.

Re:TFA got the probabilities backward (2)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about a year ago | (#42766249)

What is your dog in this fight?

I'll assume that you hit the wrong link, and read something else, so here is from the article:

It can be more dangerous to click on an online advertisement than an adult content site these days, Cisco said in its latest version of the yearly security threat report.

An adult content website - that's probably porn.

The highest concentration of online security targets do not target pornography, pharmaceutical, or gambling sites as much as they affect legitimate sites such as search engines.....

Are you going to wordsmith this one> Yeah, it doesn't say "porn". It says "pornography. The section you quoted, below the sentence with pornography in the text, does speak of the counterfeit software site.

But you know why they used the "counterfeit site metric don't you? Because of the uproar that would ensue if they used actual data from porn surfing. And probably the glut of resumes too.

Dumb sites... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759529)

there is an overwhelming perception that people get compromised for 'going to dumb sites,

Like this one? http://homestore.cisco.com/en-us.htm [cisco.com]

Risky != Risky??? (0)

iYk6 (1425255) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759557)

The popular belief is that security risks increase as the user engages in riskier ... behavior online

So security risks don't increase as I engage in risky behavior? How does that even work? If something doesn't increase risk, then it isn't risky. I can start downloading and executing everything I see without increasing security risks?

Re:Risky != Risky??? (2)

GiantMolecularCloud (2825541) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759567)

You would actually become safer.

Re:Risky != Risky??? (4, Informative)

phaunt (1079975) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759577)

What Cisco's report actually said is that behaviour often perceived as "safe" (such as online shopping) carries more risk than generally thought.

Re:Risky != Risky??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759589)

The popular belief is that security risks increase as the user engages in riskier ... behavior online

So security risks don't increase as I engage in risky behavior? How does that even work? If something doesn't increase risk, then it isn't risky. I can start downloading and executing everything I see without increasing security risks?

Oh come on now, let's not get anal about dissecting this. You know what the article was trying to get at...avoiding that "yeah, we know what you were surfing" look you get from your IT department every time you bring a personal computer to them that has an infection issue. Point is people do get infected from taking risks online, but clicking on "Add to Cart" shouldn't be equal to surfing the .ru domain for legit software.

Re:Risky != Risky??? (1, Funny)

nickybio (1458399) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762217)

You hit the nail on the head. We should do everything we can to avoid anal dissection.

Re:Risky != Risky??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759593)

They meant risqué vs risky?

Re:Risky != Risky??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759639)

You're still applying the word risky. Why is an adult site considered risky? Because the common belief is that porn sites give you viruses. In my experience, they frequently do attach some small adware or tracker, but not at all like the fun places adds take you to. That being said, "risky behavior" can include going to a site with a lot of ads.

Why is this even news? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759595)

It has been known for a long time that ads are a primary malware vector, this is the reason many sane people block them.

Re:Why is this even news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759905)

It is apparently news to all the people who keep clicking them otherwise these findings would not exist.

Hopefully the information makes it to some of them this time.

Re:Why is this even news? (2)

RR (64484) | about a year ago | (#42766257)

It has been known for a long time that ads are a primary malware vector, this is the reason many sane people block them.

That is not the primary reason why I block ads. I block ads because I can't stand all the dancing, jiggling, flashing, gray overlays, slowdowns, green links, and noises, when I want to read something. If I incidentally block all the ads, well, I don't have the time to make my own ad block list that blocks only the bad ad providers. I tried it before, and I'm not convinced that there are any benign ad services.

PAID online porn is safe... (5, Funny)

K2tech (1685250) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759627)

Well thats what I heard...from a friend...he doesn't have that many accounts...

Pay sites do take it seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759921)

Most sites that are tring to get you to pay to use the site do seem take the security pretty seriously. They know that they have to deliver a better user experience then the "free" sites that have piles of full of stolen content. I've been awakened at 2AM more then once by an adult site webmaster who wants an infection cleaned up NOW and the site locked down so tight the crackers will never infect it again.

A lot of the free sites are nothing but stolen content. You can recognize those because they don't link each pic or video to the source pay site. When you see they aren't linking to the site it came from, you know they are crooks. Crooks, by definition, are more likely to do something nasty to you.

Re:Pay sites do take it seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42760473)

You can recognize those because they don't link each pic or video to the source pay site.

So, no original content is ever produced? Or do sites now have to link back to themselves, for their content to be not stolen?

Also, your statement presumes that all porn is produced for pay. If your statement had been about software instead of porn, you would have just declared Linux and FreeBSD illegal. Of course you could try some scarcity argument, that the number of people able to develop software is much larger than the number of people able to take off their clothes, and thus while free software can and does exist, free porn cannot.

Not for free, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761129)

So, no original content is ever produced? Or do sites now have to link back to themselves, for their content to be not stolen?

Original content, professional style porrn, is produced by people who want to get their investment back, not by charities giving it away for free. Professional style content is not produced FOR FREE, 99.9999% of the time.

Also, your statement presumes that all porn is produced for pay.

Pre-sume is to decide before you have the relevant information. That's the PRE part of PREsume. I do happen to have the information, so it's not a presumption, it's an observation after a fifteen year career in online porn. The person making statements about how the porn industry works, but who has never been in the porn industry is the one doing the presuming.

If your statement had been about software instead of porn, you would have just declared Linux and FreeBSD illegal.

If your statement was about about pizza, you would have been talking about pepperoni. Yeah, if I had said something completely different, I would have been saying something different. I produce free software. I don't produce free porn. I have produced paid porn. (and paid software used by 35% of paid porn sites).

(Double checking that I clicked "post anonymously".)

Re:Pay sites do take it seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42764981)

Some of those non-samesitesource porns are old porns those sites are selling off either as advertising or just plain selling.

Re:PAID online porn is safe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761479)

Maybe that's because paid sites are less likely to have online ads.

Thanks Google (2)

Vladius (2577555) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759649)

I've noticed similar shadyness with Google ads and just about all "sponsored content" you see on websites. You see the bullshit tags like "Doctors angered at woman's self treatment" or links to sites that seem to do nothing more than try to scare you to invest. The internet is full of bullshit. Somehow, for some reason Google is one of the richest companies in the world because of it. I'd like to know, who actually clicks on this shit.

Oh NOES! Not teh Google! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759779)

You're not allowed to criticize Google on Slashdot.

Even though their entire business plan is to rape your privacy for every penny they can squeeze out of it.

Re:Thanks Google (5, Interesting)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759781)

Did you check out Google's information on government/police/court requests for info and takedowns in the UK? Around 4,000 incidents in total, and over 2,000 of them were regarding AdWords. Not Youtube, or Blogger, or G+ or Google Pages, but AdWords. Looks like they're well aware of the problems, to the point of government agencies taking regular action over it. Thing is, this is the thing that makes them an enormous amount of money...

Full breakdowns by country here [google.com]

Let's get rid of online ads then. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759671)

Let's get rid of online ads then.

Or how about we just make secure browsers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42760003)

Seriously, what year is this? If websites can still drop an executable onto a users machine with nothing more than a drive-by then clearly the problem is much more than just a question of ads of no ads. Why do operating systems and browsers still suck?

Re:Or how about we just make secure browsers (2)

thunderclap (972782) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760313)

Seriously, what year is this? If websites can still drop an executable onto a users machine with nothing more than a drive-by then clearly the problem is much more than just a question of ads of no ads. Why do operating systems and browsers still suck?

Because Microsoft hasn't finished committing suicide yet. When IE finally approaches 0% then the suckage will start to lift.
Oh before you bitch about Microsoft bashing, they just killed off Direct X. Ballmer is driving it into the ground faster than an exploding 787 battery.

I got rid of ads & via a superior method (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42760951)

To AdBlock, Ghostery & other 'competing solutions' -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760269 [slashdot.org]

Which AdBlock no longer blocks all ads by default & Ghostery is OWNED BY ADVERTISERS...

Talk about being 'souled out' & having 'foxes guard your henhouse' with those 2!

DNS is chock full of security vulnerabilities too!

(One being that it is unpatched a 1/2 decade later vs. the Kaminsky redirect poisoning flaw -> http://it.slashdot.org/story/13/01/29/1859257/5-years-after-major-dns-flaw-found-few-us-companies-have-deployed-long-term-fix [slashdot.org] too, along with MANY others - if you want a list? "Ask & ye shall receive"...)

AND

Yes - That's the case, & worldwide in MOSTLY ALL OF THE DNS SERVES OUT THERE, no less, the majority of them!

(Worst of all, @ the ISP level no less, as well as in businesses etc.)

APK

P.S.=> Which is WHY I designed that app - PLUS, it does a lot more for you than those competing solutions I noted above, AND?

It actually supplements DNS by bypassing it safely to overcome that flaw & others!

(By using reverse DNS hardcoded entries to the in arpa addr 'tld' that houses that information from the DNSSEC root 13 servers - which are secured vs. that flaw noted above in redirect poisonings & others)

... apk

Re:I got rid of ads & via a superior method (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762267)

That's stupid, only an idiot uses a program. I just edit my hosts file.

Not stupid with MILLIONS of line entries... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762573)

See subject-line above: Do you have 1,928,714++ entries & growing in your custom hosts file? If so, good luck deduplicating/normalizing + filtering out invalid or harmful entries (mostly CDN's for big sites like AMAZON or EBay for instance) from it.

Thus, you aren't using as efficient a host file as is possible - my program allows that, & does so from a dozen or so REPUTABLE & RELIABLE SOURCES for custom hosts file data.

AND, if you don't? You aren't as well protected as I am via that program... period!

* :)

Thus? You FAIL, for all the reasons noted above!

However, you DO have 1 'saving grace'/'redeeming feature' apparently - you have the good sense to utilize custom hosts files for more speed, security, reliability & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNSBL &/or DNS request logs)...

APK

P.S.=> Now, you all just KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, as-is-per-my-usual "inimitable style", especially vs. "ne'er-do-well" naysayers when I level them with FACTS as shown above:

THIS? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" & always is, vs. naysayer trolls...

... apk

Re:Not stupid with MILLIONS of line entries... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42763243)

Hey, APK [photobucket.com]

Hey troll (you failed again, lol)... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42763643)

See here, "Rinse, Lather, & Repeat" -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42762573 [slashdot.org]

* :)

Additionally, of course, making you "double-fail" on more than just those facts you run from?

LMAO - There is also the fact you HAVE to do a "run, forrest: RUN!!!" vs. facts I put out!

Facts, that quite apparently judging on the results here vs. my posts & trolls like you, that not a single one of you trolls can disprove on the superiority of custom hosts files over AdBlock + Ghostery (crippled & advertiser owned, respectively, talk about "foxes guarding the henhouse" & only a FOOL would rely on them now because of that) as well as DNS (which has faults, & ones custom hosts files overcome & supplement DNS too)!

ALL, for better speed, security, reliability, + even anonymity (to an extent vs. DNS request logs & DNSBL's you may not like too) that custom hosts file usage yields for end-users of them... fact!

* Trolls - they're ALL THE SAME, & they NEVER "fail to FAIL", vs. myself (especially on the accounts noted above, lol).

APK

P.S.=> Above all else here perhaps? Well - Thanks for making ME, look GOOD & yourselves "not so good" especially by way of comparison since you're reduced to mere off-topic trolling & failed illogical ad hominem attack attempts, via your MULTIPLE failures, noted above...

... apk

Unjustifiable downmods = "best ya got" trolls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42770913)

Disprove my points here instead -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760951 [slashdot.org]

* :)

You can't, can you...? Nope!

(Rather OBVIOUSLY not, in fact!)

You show us all reading this, since the "best you've got" is technically unjustifiable downmods to effetely & VAINLY *try* to "hide" my posts from view!

Face facts: You can't disprove my points in favor of custom hosts files over "almost all ads blocked" (adblock), Ghostery, AND DNS... & that IS that!

(Won't work on the bogus downmods either - as most folks here browse WELL BELOW the default level to see ALL posts, even AC ones like mine!)

APK

P.S.=> Then, if you do your completely FAILING unjustifiable downmods (with no substance behind them to disprove my points no less)? I just post in reply to them, draggin them back INTO VIEW...

You fail there too, lol - best part is seeing you HAVE to *try* to "pull that" & failing, as well as seeing you completely reduced to doing a "run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. my points on custom hosts files' value on a plethora of levels for more speed, security, reliability & yes, even anonymity to an extent (vs DNS request logs + DNSBL's you may not like also), in your inability to disprove them with valid computing technical facts to do so, validly!

... apk/b

So then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759673)

...are online porn ads the greatest threat?

AdBlock Plus! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759765)

Glad I block ads...

Adblock = inferior to custom hosts files... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42760859)

Take a read -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760269 [slashdot.org]

Here's how/why/when/where too specifically:

---

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]

(Meaning by default, which MOST USERS WON'T CHANGE, it doesn't block ALL ads - they "souled-out"... talk about "foxes guarding the henhouse")!

---

Plus, Adblock CAN'T DO AS MUCH & not from a single file solution that runs in Ring 0/RPL 0/kernelmode via tcpip.sys, a driver (since it's part of the IP stack & tightly integrated into it) which is far, Far, FAR FASTER than ring 3/rpl 3/usermode apps like browsers, & addons slow them down (known issue in FireFox).

To wit, 10++ things AdBlock can't do, hosts can:

---

1.) Blocking rogue DNS servers malware makers use

2.) Blocking known sites/servers that serve up malware... like known sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malicious scripts

3.) Speeding up your FAVORITE SITES that hosts can speed up via hardcoded line item entries properly resolved by a reverse DNS ping

4.) AdBlock works on Mozilla products (browser & email), hosts work on ANY webbound app AND are multiplatform.

5.) AdBlock can't protect external to FireFox email programs, hosts can (think OUTLOOK, Eudora, & others)

6.) AdBlock can't help you blow past DNSBL's (DNS block lists)

7.) AdBlock can't help you avoid DNS request logs (hosts can via hardcoded favorites)

8.) AdBlock can't protect you vs. TRACKERS (hosts can)

9.) AdBlock can't protect you vs. DOWNED or "DNS-poisoned" redirected DNS servers (hosts can by hardcodes)

10.) Hosts are EASIER to manage, they're just a text file (adblock means you had BEST know your javascript, perl, & python (iirc as to what languages are used to make it from source)).

& more... as a tiny 'sampling' & proofs thereof!

---

* :)

APK

P.S.=> Custom hosts files are FAR superior to AdBlock (which should be called "almost all ads blocked" by default, per the linked article above... what a shame - they 'souled out', along with Ghostery (owned by Evidon advertisers, talk about "foxes guarding the henhouse"))...

... apk

Unjustifiable downmods = "best ya got" trolls? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42763747)

Disprove my points here instead -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760859 [slashdot.org]

* :)

You can't, can you...? Nope!

(Rather OBVIOUSLY not, in fact!)

You show us all reading this, since the "best you've got" is technically unjustifiable downmods to effetely & VAINLY *try* to "hide" my posts from view!

Face facts: You can't disprove my points, & that IS that!

(Won't work on the bogus downmods either - as most folks here browse WELL BELOW the default level to see ALL posts, even AC ones like mine!)

APK

P.S.=> Then, if you do your completely FAILING unjustifiable downmods (with no substance behind them to disprove my points no less)? I just post in reply to them, draggin them back INTO VIEW...

You fail there too, lol - best part is seeing you HAVE to *try* to "pull that" & failing, as well as seeing you completely reduced to doing a "run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. my points on custom hosts files' value on a plethora of levels for more speed, security, reliability & yes, even anonymity to an extent (vs DNS request logs + DNSBL's you may not like also), in your inability to disprove them with valid computing technical facts to do so, validly!

... apk

Unjustifiable downmods = "best ya got", trolls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42770867)

Disprove my points here instead -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760859 [slashdot.org]

* :)

You can't, can you...? Nope!

(Rather OBVIOUSLY not, in fact!)

You show us all reading this, since the "best you've got" is technically unjustifiable downmods to effetely & VAINLY *try* to "hide" my posts from view!

Face facts: You can't disprove my points in favor of custom hosts files over "almost all ads blocked" (adblock), & that IS that!

(Won't work on the bogus downmods either - as most folks here browse WELL BELOW the default level to see ALL posts, even AC ones like mine!)

APK

P.S.=> Then, if you do your completely FAILING unjustifiable downmods (with no substance behind them to disprove my points no less)? I just post in reply to them, draggin them back INTO VIEW...

You fail there too, lol - best part is seeing you HAVE to *try* to "pull that" & failing, as well as seeing you completely reduced to doing a "run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. my points on custom hosts files' value on a plethora of levels for more speed, security, reliability & yes, even anonymity to an extent (vs DNS request logs + DNSBL's you may not like also), in your inability to disprove them with valid computing technical facts to do so, validly!

... apk

No surprise there, really. (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759799)

It is long known that ads may contain malicious parts - especially bits of javascript. It happened before that major ad servers got compromised, it will happen again. I recall reports that some ads were trying to infect an unsuspecting user directly, and such ads are displayed on sites all over the place, including personal blogs and lolcat sites.

When clicking an ad you don't really know which site you're going to be sent to. When visiting a porn or a warez site, you normally go there intentionally. Those sites are considered risky (especially the free ones - that use free porn/software to attract visitors - and somehow still have a desire to generate income), so many visitors will be more vigilant and may take extra precautions even.

And ads will likely have a greater reach. I think it's safe to assume that many more people visit general sites with ads, than visit porn/warez sites. Greater chance to find a vulnerable system. More chance for someone to (accidentally) click the ad, and have them redirected to a malware site.

The only somewhat surprising part is where online shopping sites are named as a major source of infection. Those sites have a reputation to keep up, or they will lose business. And as they are shopping sites, their income comes from direct sales, so there is no need to display third-party ads for revenue.

Just trying to be safe.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759873)

I didn't really want to visit the porn site, but that I had to, so that I wouldn't get my computer infected....

Re:Just trying to be safe.. (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763303)

Mod parent +1:???

Well it's about fucking time! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759893)

Why should I have to be penalized more than someone else just because I like to see a little of the sexy time now and again?

Hopefully these goody-two-shoes who never peruse the prurient will finally unpucker their assholes and live more like me. That is to say, the right way.

watch... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759995)

next week cisco unveils a new enterprise-caliber ad-scrubbing internet gateway...

This is why I block ads (5, Insightful)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760183)

This was always my response to the 'it is immoral to block ads' argument. I always said that if blah.com is hosting the ads itself I would be willing to allow them but as long as the content is from some unknown domain that I haven't chosen to trust, forget about it.

Re:This is why I block ads (1)

deains (1726012) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760273)

So do you block ads, or block content from unknown domains?

Re:This is why I block ads (2)

green1 (322787) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760835)

My ad blocking is accomplished by my DNS server, so it's not so much unknown domains as domains known to serve nothing but ads.

DNS = faulty (hosts fix it)... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761667)

As well as gaining you superior speed, security, reliability, & even "anonymity" to an extent (vs. DNS request logs, & yes, the ability to bypass DNSBL's (dns block lists) you may not agree with too):

---

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

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]

Which, if you read the list of what it can do for you as an end user of the resulting output it produces listed in the link above, you'll understand how/why...

"It's as strong as steel, & a 3rd of the weight" - Howard Stark from the film "Captain America"

---

Vs. even DNS servers too (which hosts files can supplement to overcome THEIR shortcomings, as follows):

---

A.) Running another program (sometimes in usermode no less, far, Far, FAR slower than kernelmode by many orders of magnitude & easily attacked) vs. the single hosts file (tightly integrated into the IP stack itself as part of it). ADDING COMPLEXITY & MORE "moving parts" room for error & breakdown!

B.) Wasting CPU cycles, RAM memory, & other forms of I/O to do what a single file can do

C.) Wasting ELECTRICITY (especially if the DNS server is setup as a separate machine) even if run as a service/daemon on a single system as user has

D.) DNS has NUMEROUS faults, & should anyone request a sampling of them? Ask & "ye shall receive" (see my 'p.s.' below...).

---

Resulting in security AND in saving your bandwidth & giving you FASTER host-domain name resolution locally vs. remote DNS servers, especially if a NXDOMAIN results!

Since you do it LOCALLY via verified hardcoded hosts file entries of your favorites, which also gets you speed too as noted), simply to overcome that flaw & others!

Hosts files hardcodes are not only faster, but safer too, simply since my program uses reverse DNS hardcoded entries tests, to the in arpa addr 'tld' that houses that information from the DNSSEC root 13 servers - which are secured vs. that flaw noted above in redirect poisonings (& others)

---

AND, especially vs. competing alternate 'solutions', noted below in AdBlock/Ghostery & yes even DNS servers, next, as 'examples thereof'...

Solutions that used to be good & I even recommended them in security guides I wrote up over the decades now -> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000/XP%22&btnG=Submit&gbv=1&sei=ka3yUKzxB-6_0QHLroCQCA [google.com]

That did extremely well for myself (and users of them), for Windows users, for "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" purposes - the BEST THING WE HAVE GOING vs. threats of all kinds, currently!

(Not anymore though, & certainly NOT far as AdBlock's concerned especially, not after this):

---

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]

(Meaning by default, which MOST USERS WON'T CHANGE, it doesn't block ALL ads - they "souled-out"... talk about "foxes guarding the henhouse")!

---

Plus, Adblock CAN'T DO AS MUCH & not from a single file solution that runs in Ring 0/RPL 0/kernelmode via tcpip.sys, a driver (since it's part of the IP stack & tightly integrated into it) which is far, Far, FAR FASTER than ring 3/rpl 3/usermode apps like browsers, & addons slow them down (known issue in FireFox).

To wit, 10++ things AdBlock can't do, hosts can:

---

1.) Blocking rogue DNS servers malware makers use

2.) Blocking known sites/servers that serve up malware... like known sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malicious scripts

3.) Speeding up your FAVORITE SITES that hosts can speed up via hardcoded line item entries properly resolved by a reverse DNS ping

4.) AdBlock works on Mozilla products (browser & email), hosts work on ANY webbound app AND are multiplatform.

5.) AdBlock can't protect external to FireFox email programs, hosts can (think OUTLOOK, Eudora, & others)

6.) AdBlock can't help you blow past DNSBL's (DNS block lists)

7.) AdBlock can't help you avoid DNS request logs (hosts can via hardcoded favorites)

8.) AdBlock can't protect you vs. TRACKERS (hosts can)

9.) AdBlock can't protect you vs. DOWNED or "DNS-poisoned" redirected DNS servers (hosts can by hardcodes)

10.) Hosts are EASIER to manage, they're just a text file (adblock means you had BEST know your javascript, perl, & python (iirc as to what languages are used to make it from source)).

& more... as a tiny 'sampling' & proofs thereof!

---

Same with Ghostery:

---

Evidon, which makes Ghostery, is an advertising company.

They were originally named Better Advertising, Inc., but changed their name for obvious PR reasons.

Despite the name change, let's be clear on one thing: their goal still is building better advertising, not protecting consumer privacy.

Evidon bought Ghostery, an independent privacy tool that had a good reputation.

They took a tool that was originally for watching the trackers online, something people saw as a legitimate privacy tool, and users were understandably concerned.

The company said they were just using Ghostery for research. Turns out they had relationships with a bunch of ad companies and were compiling data from which sites you visited when you were using Ghostery, what trackers were on those sites, what ads they were, etc., and building a database to monetize.

(AND, when confronted about it, they made their tracking opt-in and called it GhostRank, which is how it exists today.)

They took an open-source type tool, bought it, turned it from something that's actually protecting people from the ad industry, to something where the users are actually providing data to the advertisers to make it easier to track them. This is a fundamental conflict of interest.

To sum up:

Ghostery makes its money from selling supposedly de-indentified user data about sites visited and ads encountered to marketers and advertisers. You get less privacy, they get more money.

That's an inverse relationship.

Better Advertising/Evidon continually plays up the story that people should just download Ghostery to help them hide from advertisers.

Their motivation to promote it, however, isn't for better privacy; it's because they hope that you'll opt in to GhostRank and send you a bunch of information.

They named their company Better Advertising for a reason: their incentive is better advertising, not better privacy.

---

Yes, so overall? Absolutely - hosts are superior!

HOWEVER:

I don't "hate" DNS servers!

In fact - I use them myself (since I don't attempt to resolve 'every host-domain there is online' via hosts, only my favorites @ the top of the file, 20 of them, which beats hashtable indexing or b-tree binary seeks past 2++ million records no less).

I use specialized FILTERING DNS SERVERS that help block out malicious sites/servers/hosts-domains via DNSBLs:

---

Norton DNS:

http://setup.nortondns.com/ [nortondns.com]

198.153.192.1
198.153.194.1
198.153.192.60
198.153.194.60
198.153.192.50
198.153.194.50
198.153.192.40
198.153.194.40

OpenDNS:

http://www.opendns.com/home-solutions/ [opendns.com]

208.67.222.222
208.67.220.220

ScrubIT DNS:

http://scrubit.com/ [scrubit.com]

67.138.54.100
207.225.209.66

Comodo Secure DNS:

http://www.comodo.com/secure-dns/switch/windows_vista.html [comodo.com]

8.26.56.26
8.20.247.2

---

ALL in layered formation in both my network connection AND my Cisco/LinkSys stateful packet inspecting router.

(Again - for the concept of "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth": The best thing we have going currently vs. malicious threats online & otherwise...)

* :)

(Beat THAT with a stick... or better yet? With information that disproves my points (to any 'naysayers' or trolls, that is)).

Now - I truly KNOW this post will no doubt be downmodded, because Advertisers do NOT want this type of information getting out en-masse to enlighten users - they bought out Ghostery, crippled Adblock, but TRY THAT with a local hosts file (good luck!) especially one a user builds himself!

APK

P.S.=> A DNS FLAWS LIST OVER TIME FOR REFERENCE (only partial):

---

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]

---

5 years after major DNS flaw is discovered, few US companies have deployed long-term fix (vs. Kaminsky Bug above...):

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/012913-dnssec-266197.html?page=3 [networkworld.com]

---

HOWEVER/AGAIN - there are DNS servers that help vs. online threats, as listed above earlier...

... apk

Re:DNS = faulty (hosts fix it)... apk (2)

nickybio (1458399) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762299)

Please stop with the long, self-advertising posts. There's no doubt you are amazing and should start your own blog.

Not selling/free & it works != advertising (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762487)

"Please stop with the long, self-advertising posts." - by nickybio (1458399) on Friday February 01, @12:07PM (#42762299)

See subject-line above: "Rinse, Lather, & Repeat" till it 'sinks in' for you, troll... by the way: I do NOT take YOUR orders either, get it?

"Onwards & Upwards", do read on...

---

"There's no doubt you are amazing and should start your own blog." - by nickybio (1458399) on Friday February 01, @12:07PM (#42762299)

Thank-You: Obviously, you're not since you didn't disprove my points in my post you responded to completely off-topic... lol!

However:

ANYONE, with a spine & some programming know-how, clearly unlike you @ this point so far @ least, can be out there "doing the right thing" as I have!

Additionally - With an excellent ware that does EXACTLY what I stated it does for you!

Especially over faulty solutions like DNS alone, or browser addons like AdBlock + Ghostery!

(Yes - I can state that, & validly, since I don't see you disproving my points on DNS' faults & how custom hosts files overcome them)

No - instead, you're an off-topic troll!

An off-topic troll that I also additionally wager hasn't done the same & is merely a forums "ne'er-do-well" that hasn't contributed a FRACTION of what I have over time in the art & science of computing!

(And, to good note in commercial software also, not just freeware like the above, freeware/shareware, highly esteemed trade show showings, & far more in respected written publications in the art & science of computing - That I did while I would guess were done before you were BREATHING even, or, still in DIAPERS, boy...)

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Get on topic, perhaps above all else - you FAIL, and rather badly, for all the reasons noted above... period!

... apk

Re:DNS = faulty (hosts fix it)... apk (1)

green1 (322787) | about a year ago | (#42766255)

Considering how often this troll has posted that in this article alone (let alone the million other places) I don't see him changing any time soon. Of course using a hosts file is a better solution for people who have one single computer that connects to all sorts of networks. But for my particular situation it is just not ideal, and the DNS server offers a whole bunch of advantages, and almost no disadvantages.
For me, I administer one list on the DNS server, and it covers all my family's computers, all our cell phones, tablets, and any other internet connected devices. As I'm running the server for other things anyway it costs me nothing.
Although I do have to do some small amount of administration myself, it beats trusting any other application to do it, especially one spamvertised on some random internet site...

Considering how often downmodding trolls (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42770845)

With "hit & run" unjustifiable downmods can't disproven this -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42761667 [slashdot.org] alone (let alone the million other places) I don't see them changing any time soon.

---

"Of course using a hosts file is a better solution for people who have one single computer that connects to all sorts of networks." - by green1 (322787) on Friday February 01, @05:31PM (#42766255)

Aha - so, there's the truth, right there... but, you're missing another point my initial post makes: I USE REMOTE DNS SERVERS MYSELF, albeit, specialized filtering ones that block out online threats too, AND, that I use hosts to supplement them, overcoming the list of faults in DNS noted in my initial post too -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42761667 [slashdot.org]

---

"But for my particular situation it is just not ideal, and the DNS server offers a whole bunch of advantages, and almost no disadvantages." - by green1 (322787) on Friday February 01, @05:31PM (#42766255)

Eating more ELECTRICITY (raising your bills, especially if your DNS is a SEPARATE MACHINE) isn't a disadvantage?

Eating more CPU cycles isn't a disadvantage??

Eating more RAM isn't a disadvantage???

Eating more I/O of other forms isn't a disadvantage????

Using a more "moving parts" complex tool vs. custom hosts (a single file) that're TIGHTLY INTEGRATED into the IP stack itself and LESS moving parts isn't a disadvantage????

Using DNS with all of its faults I listed (worst being the fact DNS's unpatched vs. the Kaminsky flaw for 1/2 a decade++ still on MOST DNS SERVERS WORLDWIDE, worst of all @ the ISP level) isn't a disadvantage?????

---

"For me, I administer one list on the DNS server, and it covers all my family's computers, all our cell phones, tablets, and any other internet connected devices. As I'm running the server for other things anyway it costs me nothing." - by green1 (322787) on Friday February 01, @05:31PM (#42766255)

You could migrate a custom hosts file using logon scripts easily, OR, use your AD admin priveleges & a batch file or powershell script to do so as well - with far less disadvantages shown above (worst being the last one, unless you patched, hope you did)... & you can actually SUPPLEMENT DNS' vs. its own SHORTCOMINGS with hosts too.

---

"Although I do have to do some small amount of administration myself, it beats trusting any other application to do it, especially one spamvertised on some random internet site..." - by green1 (322787) on Friday February 01, @05:31PM (#42766255)

LOL, is THAT "the best you got", along with unjustifiable "hit & run" downmods of my original post? Apparently so!

However/Again: I do NOT see you disproving the facts I listed in it either...

APK

P.S.=> So much for you... apk

Re:Considering how often downmodding trolls (1)

green1 (322787) | about a year and a half ago | (#42771321)

wow.... and the troll just will not give up... completely ignores everything I said, and wants to force his inferior system on the world. too bad the troll is too cowardly to log in.

Re:DNS = faulty (hosts fix it)... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762669)

apk, I'm TROLLING [memegenerator.net] you!!!

Disprove facts I listed instead... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762881)

You can't can you? Obviously not vs. what I posted -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42761667 [slashdot.org]

* :)

(Plus, face facts: ALL the off-topic illogical 'trolling' in the WORLD doesn't make you look better for it, by-the-by, but it does ME... since you are helpless vs. facts & your immature effete trolling can't change that fact - period!)

It's also obvious that since you resort to AC trollling posts, you're probably the fool vainly *trying* to "hide my posts" via unjustifiable downmods but not disproving my points + facts listed in it -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760269 [slashdot.org]

Especially my initial one in THAT link above! It merely exemplifies my points, & yes, I predicted that would happen in its content as well just prior to my 'p.s.'... lol!

Amazing that (not).

(Points on Custom hosts' superiority on MANY levels, especially vs. AdBlock/Ghostery especially which are absolutely crippled by default + advertiser owned respectively - talk about "foxes guarding the henhouse" & only an UTTER FOOL would use them since that IS the case with them both now, unfortunately!)

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Hey: I know it, YOU KNOW IT, & anyone else reading here with 1/2 a brain does also since you have to resort to "ac trolling"!

So - Thanks for making me LOOK GOOD, & yourself "not so good" by way of comparison, @ least, & on that very account, troll!

... apk

Unjustified moddowns = "best ya got" trolls? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42770897)

Disprove my points here instead -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42761667 [slashdot.org]

* :)

You can't, can you...? Nope!

(Rather OBVIOUSLY not, in fact!)

You show us all reading this, since the "best you've got" is technically unjustifiable downmods to effetely & VAINLY *try* to "hide" my posts from view!

Face facts: You can't disprove my points in favor of custom hosts files over "almost all ads blocked" (adblock), Ghostery, AND DNS... & that IS that!

(Won't work on the bogus downmods either - as most folks here browse WELL BELOW the default level to see ALL posts, even AC ones like mine!)

APK

P.S.=> Then, if you do your completely FAILING unjustifiable downmods (with no substance behind them to disprove my points no less)? I just post in reply to them, draggin them back INTO VIEW...

You fail there too, lol - best part is seeing you HAVE to *try* to "pull that" & failing, as well as seeing you completely reduced to doing a "run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. my points on custom hosts files' value on a plethora of levels for more speed, security, reliability & yes, even anonymity to an extent (vs DNS request logs + DNSBL's you may not like also), in your inability to disprove them with valid computing technical facts to do so, validly!

... apk

Seems "dns fans" fail vs. my points (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42763039)

On custom hosts files' ability to overcome DNS faults -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42761667 [slashdot.org]

As well as supplementing DNS for better speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity, to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's too)...

* Where, quite clearly, you show us that all "you & yours" HAVE is effete technically unjustifiable "hit & run" downmods vs. my points enumerated there in the link above, on custom hosts files' clear superiority over DNS alone... & yes - Other 'solutions' as well

(Especially AdBlock & Ghostery - crippled by DEFAULT in the former, & advertiser owned in the latter... talk about "foxes guarding the henhouse" & only an utter FOOL would use them now because of those facts!)

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Don't even *try* to tell me that since you posted you could not have downmodded my post either!

Since it is ENTIRELY easily doable since the "so-called 'moderation system'" here is easily bypassed by downmodding via your registered account, logging out to preserve cookie state, & then trolling by AC posts - which IS going on along with unjustifiable downmods of my posts here too)

... apk

Unjustifiable downmods = "best ya got" trolls? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42770881)

Disprove my points here instead -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42761667 [slashdot.org]

* :)

You can't, can you...? Nope!

(Rather OBVIOUSLY not, in fact!)

You show us all reading this, since the "best you've got" is technically unjustifiable downmods to effetely & VAINLY *try* to "hide" my posts from view!

Face facts: You can't disprove my points in favor of custom hosts files over "almost all ads blocked" (adblock), Ghostery, AND DNS... & that IS that!

(Won't work on the bogus downmods either - as most folks here browse WELL BELOW the default level to see ALL posts, even AC ones like mine!)

APK

P.S.=> Then, if you do your completely FAILING unjustifiable downmods (with no substance behind them to disprove my points no less)? I just post in reply to them, draggin them back INTO VIEW...

You fail there too, lol - best part is seeing you HAVE to *try* to "pull that" & failing, as well as seeing you completely reduced to doing a "run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. my points on custom hosts files' value on a plethora of levels for more speed, security, reliability & yes, even anonymity to an extent (vs DNS request logs + DNSBL's you may not like also), in your inability to disprove them with valid computing technical facts to do so, validly!

... apk

Re:This is why I block ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761047)

So do you block ads, or block content from unknown domains?

The latter, of course.

Yes I do via the most superior method possible (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761591)

Take a read & for money I pay out to ISP's (like you) -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760269 [slashdot.org]

* :)

APK

P.S.=> Enjoy the program, and the resulting custom hosts file it creates!

Created for you from reputable sources online for that data, it works (vs. this & many other issues online vs. malicious threats + more as noted above in what you pay out monthly to ISP's for online access), and for more & BETTER:

---

SPEED:

By blocking out adbanners (malicious or not, but for security blocking them's good & for speed, it unquestionably is, since they are usually on avg. 40% of the bulk/mass of what you browse, AND, eat up CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O in processing them - not to mention they ARE many times 'bushwhacked' with bogus malicious code per this article)!

&

By doing locally resolved host-domain names, vs. remote DNS returns (which can be redirected poisoned, or even be downed DNS servers).

and more...

---

SECURITY:

Vs. malicious script housing adbanners, hosts domains, & even malware housing sites!

It also actually supplements DNS by bypassing it, & VERY safely via your fav. sites hardcoded in your custom hosts file too!

(Resulting in security AND in saving your bandwidth & giving you FASTER host-domain name resolution locally vs. remote DNS servers, especially if a NXDOMAIN results since you do it LOCALLY via verified hardcoded hosts file entries of your favorites, which also gets you speed too as noted), simply to overcome that flaw & others!

Hosts files hardcodes are not only faster, but safer too, simply since my program uses reverse DNS hardcoded entries tests, to the in arpa addr 'tld' that houses that information from the DNSSEC root 13 servers - which are secured vs. that flaw noted above in redirect poisonings & others)

---

BETTER "ANONYMITY":

To an extent, vs. DNS request logs, & the ability to bypass what you may feel are unjust blocks @ the level via being able to bypass DNS as shown above for security & speed, but also DNSBL's (dns block lists) you MAY not agree with...

... apk

"Hit & Run" downmods = best ya got? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42763181)

DNS fans FAIL vs. hosts overcoming DNS faults -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42761667 [slashdot.org]

As well as supplementing DNS for better speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity, to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's too)...

* Where, quite clearly, you show us that all "you & yours" HAVE is effete technically unjustifiable "hit & run" downmods only, which FAIL vs. my points enumerated there in the link above, on custom hosts files' clear superiority over DNS alone...

Additionally/ALSO - vs. other 'solutions' as well!

(Custom hosts are superior - Especially vs. AdBlock & Ghostery - which ARE crippled by DEFAULT in the former, & advertiser owned in the latter... talk about "foxes guarding the henhouse" & only an utter FOOL would use them now because of those facts!)

As well as downmoderating my post I just replied to in order to pull it back into view, stymying your efforts, easily (lol).

Bottom-line: You fail, trolls & all you have is effete technically unjustifiable downmods vs. computing facts I posted in my posts on custom hosts files, in order to *try* to vainly "hide" those facts from others (won't work, most here browse below the default view of /.'s forums on AC posts especially)... lmao!

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Don't even *try* to tell me that since you posted you could not have downmodded my post even if you posted with a "registered 'luser'" account, either!

Since it is ENTIRELY easily doable since the "so-called 'moderation system'" here is easily bypassed by downmodding via your registered account, logging out to preserve cookie state, & then trolling by AC posts - which IS going on along with unjustifiable downmods of my posts here too) - or, more "nefariously" & weasel-like, as trolls are "wont to do" & be?

Using multiple registered trolling accounts to do so...

... apk

Re:This is why I block ads (1)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762895)

Not sure if this was your point or not, but I use Adblock. I am not that familiar with how it works, so it might be blocking some ads hosted by the same domain. In which case I would be an unwitting hypocrite. I'll probably check up on that at some point.

Re:This is why I block ads (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about a year ago | (#42764617)

I block ads via noscript and request policy, not via adblock. So content from untrusted domains gets blocked, but not ads hosted by the site itself.

Re:This is why I block ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42764599)

It is immoral and ignorant to block all ads.

Even newspaper ads register on some level, which is what heavily funds newspapers.

When you outright block ads, you are blocking sometimes the absolute only revenue of that site.
Are you honestly going to stand up and say you would pay to use the web, every single website? (more-or-less)
Website operators don't exactly know what other sites you visit, so they can't really go "hey, you visit all these sites, so we will give you a discount since your budget for websites must already be stretched". Would they hell do that.
You'd be paying anywhere around $4 per website. (probably as low as 50 cents, perhaps)
Web rings would then have to come around again because no more advertising is allowed. (at least in the typical sense)
Web rings were horrible. They might have seemed nifty and genius when we look back at it, but it was horrible.
And even more worse if it was a linear ring, one website dies, say goodbye to the chain, you'll now be going through the opposite direction to get places, unless you bookmarked sites. (which casuals never do)
If only somebody had an index of all websites... that'd help hugely...
Back to the current system.

Advertising is not evil. Evil advertisers are evil.
The same goes for the whole Goto argument. Goto is not evil. The people who abuse it are. Goto has completely legit uses, and in many cases, a lot of languages have specialized Gotos that are used only within a parent feature, such as loops.
Without Gotos, nobody would be using a computer right now. They are basically required for computers to operate at the very basic levels.

I've only blocked those who use flash ads, pop-anythings (allowing window-creation by default is the worst thing those bastards ever created, I am glad all these new features are Ask by default, like they should have been!), focus stealing and annoying seizure gifs. Malware distributors don't even fall in to advertising in the typical sense. They are more malware distributors than they are advertisers. They fall under the typical "IP block the whole lot of them".
And even with the flash ads, I unblocked those since I just enabled click2play for plugins, so there is no point having those entries slow my connections down ever so slightly when they are already blocked beforehand.
I don't even block content I dislike, because it is up to the site operators to do advertising I would be interested in.

Well, here's what I did about it & why... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42760269)

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

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]

Which, if you read the list of what it can do for you as an end user of the resulting output it produces listed in the link above, you'll understand how/why...

"It's as strong as steel, & a 3rd of the weight" - Howard Stark from the film "Captain America"

---

Especially vs. competing alternate 'solutions', noted below in AdBlock/Ghostery & yes even DNS servers, next, as 'examples thereof'...

Solutions that used to be good & I even recommended them in security guides I wrote up over the decades now -> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000/XP%22&btnG=Submit&gbv=1&sei=ka3yUKzxB-6_0QHLroCQCA [google.com]

That did extremely well for myself (and users of them), for Windows users, for "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" purposes - the BEST THING WE HAVE GOING vs. threats of all kinds, currently!

(Not anymore though, & certainly NOT far as AdBlock's concerned especially, not after this):

---

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]

(Meaning by default, which MOST USERS WON'T CHANGE, it doesn't block ALL ads - they "souled-out"... talk about "foxes guarding the henhouse")!

---

Plus, Adblock CAN'T DO AS MUCH & not from a single file solution that runs in Ring 0/RPL 0/kernelmode via tcpip.sys, a driver (since it's part of the IP stack & tightly integrated into it) which is far, Far, FAR FASTER than ring 3/rpl 3/usermode apps like browsers, & addons slow them down (known issue in FireFox).

To wit, 10++ things AdBlock can't do, hosts can:

---

1.) Blocking rogue DNS servers malware makers use

2.) Blocking known sites/servers that serve up malware... like known sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malicious scripts

3.) Speeding up your FAVORITE SITES that hosts can speed up via hardcoded line item entries properly resolved by a reverse DNS ping

4.) AdBlock works on Mozilla products (browser & email), hosts work on ANY webbound app AND are multiplatform.

5.) AdBlock can't protect external to FireFox email programs, hosts can (think OUTLOOK, Eudora, & others)

6.) AdBlock can't help you blow past DNSBL's (DNS block lists)

7.) AdBlock can't help you avoid DNS request logs (hosts can via hardcoded favorites)

8.) AdBlock can't protect you vs. TRACKERS (hosts can)

9.) AdBlock can't protect you vs. DOWNED or "DNS-poisoned" redirected DNS servers (hosts can by hardcodes)

10.) Hosts are EASIER to manage, they're just a text file (adblock means you had BEST know your javascript, perl, & python (iirc as to what languages are used to make it from source)).

& more... as a tiny 'sampling' & proofs thereof!

---

Same with Ghostery:

---

Evidon, which makes Ghostery, is an advertising company.

They were originally named Better Advertising, Inc., but changed their name for obvious PR reasons.

Despite the name change, let's be clear on one thing: their goal still is building better advertising, not protecting consumer privacy.

Evidon bought Ghostery, an independent privacy tool that had a good reputation.

They took a tool that was originally for watching the trackers online, something people saw as a legitimate privacy tool, and users were understandably concerned.

The company said they were just using Ghostery for research. Turns out they had relationships with a bunch of ad companies and were compiling data from which sites you visited when you were using Ghostery, what trackers were on those sites, what ads they were, etc., and building a database to monetize.

(AND, when confronted about it, they made their tracking opt-in and called it GhostRank, which is how it exists today.)

They took an open-source type tool, bought it, turned it from something that's actually protecting people from the ad industry, to something where the users are actually providing data to the advertisers to make it easier to track them. This is a fundamental conflict of interest.

To sum up:

Ghostery makes its money from selling supposedly de-indentified user data about sites visited and ads encountered to marketers and advertisers. You get less privacy, they get more money.

That's an inverse relationship.

Better Advertising/Evidon continually plays up the story that people should just download Ghostery to help them hide from advertisers.

Their motivation to promote it, however, isn't for better privacy; it's because they hope that you'll opt in to GhostRank and send you a bunch of information.

They named their company Better Advertising for a reason: their incentive is better advertising, not better privacy.

---

Yes, so overall? Absolutely - hosts are superior!

Vs. even DNS servers too (which hosts files can supplement to overcome THEIR shortcomings, as follows):

---

A.) Running another program (sometimes in usermode no less, far, Far, FAR slower than kernelmode by many orders of magnitude & easily attacked) vs. the single hosts file (tightly integrated into the IP stack itself as part of it). ADDING COMPLEXITY & MORE "moving parts" room for error & breakdown!

B.) Wasting CPU cycles, RAM memory, & other forms of I/O to do what a single file can do

C.) Wasting ELECTRICITY (especially if the DNS server is setup as a separate machine) even if run as a service/daemon on a single system as user has

D.) DNS has NUMEROUS faults, & should anyone request a sampling of them? Ask & "ye shall receive"...

---

HOWEVER:

I don't "hate" DNS servers!

In fact - I use them myself (since I don't attempt to resolve 'every host-domain there is online' via hosts, only my favorites @ the top of the file, 20 of them, which beats hashtable indexing or b-tree binary seeks past 2++ million records no less).

I use specialized FILTERING DNS SERVERS that help block out malicious sites/servers/hosts-domains via DNSBLs:

---

Norton DNS:

http://setup.nortondns.com/ [nortondns.com]

198.153.192.1
198.153.194.1
198.153.192.60
198.153.194.60
198.153.192.50
198.153.194.50
198.153.192.40
198.153.194.40

OpenDNS:

http://www.opendns.com/home-solutions/ [opendns.com]

208.67.222.222
208.67.220.220

ScrubIT DNS:

http://scrubit.com/ [scrubit.com]

67.138.54.100
207.225.209.66

Comodo Secure DNS:

http://www.comodo.com/secure-dns/switch/windows_vista.html [comodo.com]

8.26.56.26
8.20.247.2

---

ALL in layered formation in both my network connection AND my Cisco/LinkSys stateful packet inspecting router.

(Again - for the concept of "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth": The best thing we have going currently vs. malicious threats online & otherwise...)

* :)

(Beat THAT with a stick... or better yet? With information that disproves my points (to any 'naysayers' or trolls, that is)).

The Advertiser isn't exactly "straight-up" with you either. Witness these events:

---

Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for (40% of your avg. webpage no less):

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]

---

Advertisters never intended to honor "DNT" (Do Not Track):

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/23/1334258/advertisers-never-intended-to-honor-dnt [slashdot.org]

---

AND, neither do others:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/30/1435231/think-tanks-website-rejects-browser-do-not-track-requests [slashdot.org]

---

The webserver program folks even "jumped on the bandwagon" in Apache, as far as "DNT":

http://apache.slashdot.org/story/12/09/08/0053235/apache-patch-to-override-ie-10s-do-not-track-setting [slashdot.org]

---

Talk about "crooked" & telling 1/2 truths (as well as making software that was ONCE quite useful & effective, NOT QUITE AS USEFUL & EFFECTIVE by default anymore!)

Now - I truly KNOW this post will no doubt be downmodded, because Advertisers do NOT want this type of information getting out en-masse to enlighten users - they bought out Ghostery, crippled Adblock, but TRY THAT with a local hosts file (good luck!) especially one a user builds himself!

APK

P.S.=> Malware's present in the banner ads you click on as well, & here are some "examples thereof" over time:

---

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]

---

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]

---

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]

---

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]

---

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/story/08/04/19/2148215/major-isps-injecting-ads-vulnerabilities-into-web [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]

---

NY TIMES INFECTED WITH MALWARE ADBANNER:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/09/13/2346229/new-york-times-site-pop-up-says-your-computer-is-infected [slashdot.org]

---

MICROSOFT HIT BY MALWARES IN ADBANNERS:

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

---

ADOBE FLASH ADS INJECTING MALWARE INTO THE NET:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/08/08/20/0029220/adobe-flash-ads-launching-clipboard-hijack-attacks [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]

---

Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again):

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

---

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

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

---

More dangerous to click on an online advertisement than an adult content site these days, Cisco said:

http://www.securityweek.com/easier-get-infected-malware-good-sites-shady-sites-cisco-says [securityweek.com]

---

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).

(Animats/John Nagle, a member here no less who himself contributed to the IP stack itself & I respect him immensely for it, unlike many here (especially trolls) said it best on advertisers & the web -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3359149&cid=42482289 [slashdot.org] )

... apk

Technically unjustified downmods = invalid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761279)

They're the "best you've got" instead of disproving this -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760269 [slashdot.org] and the points I listed there, with concrete, verifiable, & UNDENIABLE documentation from reputable sources too, no less!

* :)

(I know it, YOU KNOW IT, & you show it by doing a "hit & run" downmod with no valid critique & disproving of the points I posted - you only show others that, & they CAN read, you know, & will know it too IF they don't already!)

Seriously - your unjustifiable downmods = weak!

How?

In *trying* in vain, to "hide" my post thus with hit & run downmods...)

That won't work either - As most folks here browse FAR below the default level to see all posts, & rightfully so!

(Especially since the "so-called 'moderation system'" here is busted, & hides AC posts like mine by default... "gosh, I wonder WHY?" (lol, NOT)).

The link to my program lists all of what custom hosts files can do for an end-user of them in better speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent + a LOT more!

(Like actually getting you MORE FOR YOUR MONEY's WORTH in what you pay out monthly to ISP's -> http://www.start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&Itemid=74 [start64.com] in that download link for it!)

There is NO 'hiding' that or *trying* to, via unjustifiable downmods, is there? I also certainly do NOT see others disproving my points either... lol!

APK

P.S.=> Bottom-line: 1st of all, to whoever downmodded me & ran (not even disproving my points on custom hosts files' superiority over other flawed or crippled methods?)

Thanks, actually!

Secondly - Thanks for proving my point, AND MY PREDICTION of an "instant downmod" of my post regarding custom hosts files too, as I knew it would be and WHY -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760269 [slashdot.org]

---

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

"Now - I truly KNOW this post will no doubt be downmodded, because Advertisers do NOT want this type of information getting out en-masse to enlighten users - they bought out Ghostery, crippled Adblock, but TRY THAT with a local hosts file (good luck!) especially one a user builds himself!" - http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760269 [slashdot.org]

---

Since you show us "that's the 'best you've got'" & nothing more, lol...

However - Anyone with 1/2 a brain realizes that bogus downmods aren't justifiable when my points are solid & correct + backed by citations & documentations from reputable sources and yes, facts!

(And, they are invalid in your bogus downmods since you show us that much, downmodding troll, via your 'hit & run downmod'... period, lol!).

Custom hosts files show their superiority over other methods by:

---

1.) Gaining you added speed you PAID for & are losing, to the tune of 40% of most webpages on average due to adbanners bulk, processing required, & being bushwhacked per this article too no less!

(and for your monies you pay out to ISPs monthly, by getting more bandwidth instead of 40% of your webpages clotted & slowed down by adbanners)

2.) Added security (blocking out known malicious threats online)

3.) Added reliability (over DNS servers, unpatched for 1/2 a decade vs. the Kaminsky redirect flaw no less MOSTLY WORLDWIDE (except the root 13 DNSSEC secured ones ICANN & VERISIGN worked out @ least, which my program uses to verify the hardcoded hosts files entries against with the in arpa addr tld which my programs' reverse DNS checks of your favorites in a hosts file, does... )

4.) And more anonymity to an extent IF you wish as well should you elect to use that feature of them (which also solves that Kaminsky DNS redirect poisoning flaw by bypassing redirected DNS servers no less @ the same time!)

---

Plus a lot more, see the link to the program, & enjoy using it and most importantly, the custom hosts file it outputs folks... it works for ALL of the above, + a lot more too - bonus!

... apk

Re:Just Chill Out Already (2)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762995)

If your responses weren't canned and also formatted in such a way that you believe your target audience is capable of no thought then you might not get modded down so much.

Really your comments look like something an adman on bath salts would come up with, you are two bolded sentences away from being the Time Cube guy.

Relax, just provide a place for people to start, or if you want to provide more information a single link to a guide will suffice. Oh, and you really should just go back to using an actual account instead of AC.

Opinions vary (243++:1) on my posts quality (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42763377)

"If your responses weren't canned and also formatted in such a way that you believe your target audience is capable of no thought then you might not get modded down so much." - by Jeng (926980) on Friday February 01, @01:08PM (#42762995)

See subject-line "Argue w/ the numbers" in upmods of mine vs. your 'sentiments', off topic as they are!

"EAT YOUR WORDS", flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT" & your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH, vs. the orders of magnitude difference in your /. peers vs. you below... lol!

(Especially with the starting ones on custom hosts files' value on MULTIPLE LEVELS, in added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs, & DNSBL)):

---

Roughly 243++ 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!):

---

* THE HOSTS FILE GROUP 41++ THUSFAR (from +5 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

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 MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&cid=30555632 [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]
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)
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=1869638&cid=34237268 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608 [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]
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 and BGP +5 RATED (BEING HONEST):2010 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450 [slashdot.org]
HOSTS FILE MOD UP FOR ANDROID MALWARE:2010 -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34713952 [slashdot.org]
BANNER ADS & BANDWIDTH:2011 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722 [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 & 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]
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]
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]
APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32/64-bit: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3397505&cid=42651965 [slashdot.org]
APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32/64-bit: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3137925&cid=41429093 [slashdot.org]

---

+5 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (8):

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]
Ubuntu Linux sends back local disk query strings to CANONICAL: 2012 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3304601&cid=42234351 [slashdot.org]
Question to Mr. Mark Shuttleworth @ UBUNTU/CANONICAL: 2012 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3304725&cid=42243467 [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" (8):

APK MICROSOFT INTERVIEW:2005 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155172&cid=13007974 [slashdot.org]
Linux security failures 2011-2012: 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3319303&cid=42306663 [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]
Elevator Algorithm for harddisk drives #2 of 2 (1st's in +1): 2012 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3287917&cid=42158041 [slashdot.org]

----

+2 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (23):

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]
Microsoft's MISTAKE in Windows 8 "metro-ized" ready for 3-5 yr. old interface on PC desktops (1 of 2, other is +1): 2012 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3330901&cid=42354181 [slashdot.org]
VLC 64-bit being better than MediaPlayerClassic on Win7 64-bit: 2012 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3336253&cid=42378657 [slashdot.org]
Windows 8 failed for 3 simple reasons: 2012 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3411357&cid=42706875 [slashdot.org]
Delphi/Object Pascal & C++ vs. NIKLAUS WIRTH PASCAL/KERNIGHAN & RITCHIE C on EfNet IRC failure & possible fix: 2012 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3350243&cid=42437411 [slashdot.org]

----

+1 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (140) & 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]
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]
Windows in the "Fortune 100/500" high TPM environs & 99.999% "Fabled '5-9's'" uptime: 2012 -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3110069&cid=41305947 [slashdot.org]
Brennz bitching about Mikko Hyponnen Security Expert: 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3129943&cid=41398979 [slashdot.org]
AntiVirus FALSE POSITIVES (even on themselves) 3-10 examples: 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3132237&cid=41402041 [slashdot.org]
Speaking to Naval Information Warfare Officer on China threat: 2012 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41517129 [slashdot.org]
FTC Busts Phone Support Scammers: 2012 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3161653&cid=41543619 [slashdot.org]
Polish & Russian = Romulans & Vulcans: 2012 -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156271&cid=41517631 [slashdot.org]
Good for Mr. T. (Linux kernel 2.7): 2012 -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3164013&cid=41553831 [slashdot.org]
Building homes, RIGHT: 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227591&cid=41863891 [slashdot.org]
CA's breached = 5/6 Linux based: 2012 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222433&cid=41835589 [slashdot.org]
I post as AC and get modded up when all my other posts were downmodded: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3186429&cid=41660255 [slashdot.org]
Windows 7 will NOT GET "SERVICE PACK #2": 2012 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3207047&cid=41753975 [slashdot.org]
Opera can do "site specific" preferences vs. online threats (Jeremiah Grossman's only NOW hitting on my idea there): 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3237707&cid=41913801 [slashdot.org]
Linux security blunders 2011-2012: 2012 -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3281695&cid=42128897 [slashdot.org]
HIPAA: 2012 -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3290685&cid=42171403 [slashdot.org]
Adbanners having malicious code in them: 2012 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3299759&cid=42215249 [slashdot.org]
Elevator Algorithm for harddisk drives #1 of 2 (1st's in +3): 2012 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3287917&cid=42156255 [slashdot.org]
Microsoft's MISTAKE in Windows 8 "metro-ized" ready for 3-5 yr. old interface on PC desktops (2 of 2, other is +2): 2012 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3330901&cid=42354749 [slashdot.org]
How to install NVidia DRIVER ONLY (not control panelware stuff too): 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3344029&cid=42407223 [slashdot.org]
DUSTING 'CruTcHy' the NOOB who can't prove his words he's a professional coder & is a "pot calling a kettle black": 2012 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3272015&cid=42125693 [slashdot.org]
How programming changes you into a "nerd" but ANYONE could learn it (& value others too): 2012 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3368605&cid=42530957 [slashdot.org]
THE APOPHIS ASTEROID (what to do to destroy it (how & when)): 2012 -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3371057&cid=42541663 [slashdot.org]
CODING BIND/BOUND VARIABLES & USING SQL STORED PROCEDURES on DB engine servers, vs. DirectExecute ExecSQL stuff in front ends: 2012 -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3368605&cid=42530471 [slashdot.org]
Using GroupPolicy @ AD Level (via gpedit.msc) or SECPOL.MSC to set NTLMv2 vs. NTLMv1 security vs. penetration: 2012 -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3368135&cid=42527187 [slashdot.org]
DOING AN "IRON CROSS" vs. "Gorilla Arm" on touchscreen not making it on PC desktops: 2012 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3361017&cid=42495827 [slashdot.org]
LinkSys/CISCO router featureset (most of it, lacking VPN & Port Forwarding/Triggering onlY): 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3406867&cid=42689537 [slashdot.org]
Bridging FIOS or DSL 'modem' (or cable 'modem' too why not) vs. UPnP security issues + use your router's featureset to do it + OS side Windows UPnP service cutoff for "layered-security'/'defense-in-depth' too, thus: 2012 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3418595&cid=42736967 [slashdot.org]

---

* THE APK SECURITY GUIDE GROUP 18++ THUSFAR (from +5 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

APK SECURITY GUIDE (old one):2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154868&cid=12988150 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY GUIDE (old one):2005 -> http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168931&cid=14083927 [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]
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: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 GUIDE:2008 -> http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=970939&cid=25093275 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY GUIDE: 2008 -> http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=970939&no_d2=1&cid=25092677 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2008 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=416702&cid=22026982 [slashdot.org]
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:2009 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1135717&cid=26941781 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2010 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1885890&cid=34358316 [slashdot.org]
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1638428&cid=32070500 [slashdot.org]
APK SYSTEM TUNING:2010 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1497268&cid=30649722 [slashdot.org]
APK SYSTEM TUNING:2010 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1497268&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30649722 [slashdot.org]
MICROSOFT SECURITY:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1546446&cid=31106612 [slashdot.org]

---

* You FAIL, wannabe 'grammar nazi'!

Additionally - Rather badly vs. your peers showing clearly otherwise... lol!

By the by?

Where's your PhD in writing style/english that qualifies you as "the master of how to post online" or on how to write??

Hmmm???

It clearly "ain't", lol... you fail there too!

Yes - your no expert, & clearly outnumbered in your sentiments by my list of upward moderations, easily, & by many orders of magnitude by your own /. peers!

---

"Really your comments look like something an adman on bath salts would come up with, you are two bolded sentences away from being the Time Cube guy." - by Jeng (926980) on Friday February 01, @01:08PM (#42762995)

Is THAT "canned stale crap" & illogical off-topic failed ad hominem attack attempt "the best you got"?

Apparently so!

Mainly since I don't see you disprove my points validly on custom hosts files value over DNS, AdBlock & Ghostery - period!

Double, if not TRIPLE FAIL for you, troll!

APK

P.S.=> Now, you all KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, as-is-per-my "inimitable style":

THIS? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" & always is when effete vain unjustifiable downmods are used in combination with illogical off-topic trolling such as yours... lol!

... apk

Re:Opinions vary (243++:1) on my posts quality (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763725)

Giving people information is not a contest to see who can cram the most information down someones throat in the least friendly way.

It might be possible that there may be some useful information in your posts, but I would never know because you have to be a bit insane to be able to put up with how you present said information.

Think about how much information I just gave you in two little sentences, then look at your posts and try to distill that information into the shortest amount of words you can and I am sure your posts would only amount to around 2 well thought out paragraphs with perhaps 3 links total.

Mainly since I don't see you disprove my points validly on custom hosts files value over DNS, AdBlock & Ghostery - period!

There was no attempt to disprove the information in your posts. You made a post complaining about being down modded, I attempted to give you information that would help you not get down modded. Granted, I could have used more tact, but there was no attempt to disprove what you wrote.

You're outnumbered by your /. peers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42764371)

"Argue w/ the #'s" 243++:1 vs. your off topic b.s.-> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760859 [slashdot.org]

* Point-Blank FACT - You FAIL, & that, IS that... period!

APK

P.S.=> You're completely off-topic as well

&

You didn't validly disprove my points with countering facts in computing technical data either!

What I wrote by way of comparison?

It is HIGHLY in favor of custom hosts files' value to end users of them in added security, speed, reliability & even anonymity gains (to an extent)!

Plus - on a "myriad-plethora: of levels

vs.

faultier or crippled solutions like AdBlock, Ghostery, & DNS!

(The latter of which custom hosts actually SUPPLEMENT vs. their shortcomings in security & efficiency in a number of ways, including lightening their request load as well for admins of them - BONUS!)

... apk

Re:You're outnumbered by your /. peers (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year ago | (#42764433)

Considering you did not reference my post at all in your "rebuttal", why did you even bother replying?

I'm trying to interact with you in the hopes of finding out if there is an actual human being on the other end, and if there is one, perhaps help that person.

Why should I? You're OFF-TOPIC, troll! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42764541)

See subject-line & "rinse, lather, & repeat" -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42763377 [slashdot.org]

* You have FAILED on multiple levels!

First by being off topic & trolling!

Secondly, by opening your mouth & inserting your FOOT into it vs. contrary evidence I produced vs. your b.s.!

(Mind you, it was from your own /. peers & it quite CLEARLY "did the job" on you, for me, by letting YOU do it to yourself!)

All, via their upward moderations of my postings vs. your off-topic trolling 'opinion', which is outnumbered by MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE as to the quality of my postings @ /. over time!

APK

P.S.=> I don't "interact" with trolls that attempt to attack me on completely invalid off-topic grounds - especially ones our peers on /. easily outnumber, disproving trollish off topic crap... period!

... apkl

Re:Why should I? You're OFF-TOPIC, troll! (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year ago | (#42764637)

Have fun celebrating your victory.

You have slayed the mighty troll.

The troll that replied to you when you asked why you were down modded.

The troll that honestly tried to give you advice.

btw, I did look over your short list of non hostfile +5 moderated posts and they were not your usual copy/paste-athons with a ton of bolded lines and links to other posts. Your +5 moderated non-host file posts were more ontopic than most of your posts and more human.

But yes, I am a troll, I am not trying to help, you have won, enjoy yourself.

I don't require advice that's off-topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42770761)

That documented facts disprove -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42763377 [slashdot.org]

* :)

APK

P.S.=> Get on topic, disprove my points here -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760269 [slashdot.org] THEN, perhaps I'd take some advisement - otherwise? See above...

... apk

"Rinse, Lather, & Repeat" trolls (you fail) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42763519)

Trying to vainly "hide" my post with bogus unjustifiable downmods -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42761279 [slashdot.org]

* :)

Won't work trolls...

Why? Well - too many folks, if NOT most here in fact, browse below the bogus default /. has on ac posts!

(A default that *tries* to hide ac posts like mine in that alone from people's view)...

No - Folks'll see it regardless!

Then when you do your downmods to vainly *try* to "hide" my posts?

Well - I simply merely drag them back into view by replying to them... that's all!

AND

Then, the most FUN part of all, is to watch you "run, forrest - RUN!!!" when you can't disprove facts & points I enumerated in the link above!

Fact!

You fail, trolls... badly, on ALL accounts I just noted: I know it, YOU KNOW IT, & anyone reading with 1/2 a brain even knows it!

APK

P.S.=> "Onwards & upwards"...

... apk... that's all!

AND

Then, the most FUN part of all, is to

I have been saying this for a long time (4, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760517)

I consider "Adblock" and similar browser and computer add-ons to be *security* tools as much as bandwidth and other management.

Since the first time I noted browser exploits coming across common news and sales sites, I realized that the current model requires not trust of the sites we visit, but of the advertiser's sites... you know, like google and double-click and the others. I don't want to trust "unknowns" and so I block them unless I need them unblocked for access.

Re:I have been saying this for a long time (2)

Bieeanda (961632) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760699)

What's worse is that ad networks will trade space between themselves. Even if a site is conscientious about the ads they show and the networks they're affiliated with, malware-laden ads can still filter through because of that promiscuity.

Adblock = inferior to custom hosts files... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42760847)

Take a read -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760269 [slashdot.org]

Here's how/why/when/where too specifically:

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]

(Meaning by default, which MOST USERS WON'T CHANGE, it doesn't block ALL ads - they "souled-out"... talk about "foxes guarding the henhouse")!

---

Plus, Adblock CAN'T DO AS MUCH & not from a single file solution that runs in Ring 0/RPL 0/kernelmode via tcpip.sys, a driver (since it's part of the IP stack & tightly integrated into it) which is far, Far, FAR FASTER than ring 3/rpl 3/usermode apps like browsers, & addons slow them down (known issue in FireFox).

To wit, 10++ things AdBlock can't do, hosts can:

---

1.) Blocking rogue DNS servers malware makers use

2.) Blocking known sites/servers that serve up malware... like known sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malicious scripts

3.) Speeding up your FAVORITE SITES that hosts can speed up via hardcoded line item entries properly resolved by a reverse DNS ping

4.) AdBlock works on Mozilla products (browser & email), hosts work on ANY webbound app AND are multiplatform.

5.) AdBlock can't protect external to FireFox email programs, hosts can (think OUTLOOK, Eudora, & others)

6.) AdBlock can't help you blow past DNSBL's (DNS block lists)

7.) AdBlock can't help you avoid DNS request logs (hosts can via hardcoded favorites)

8.) AdBlock can't protect you vs. TRACKERS (hosts can)

9.) AdBlock can't protect you vs. DOWNED or "DNS-poisoned" redirected DNS servers (hosts can by hardcodes)

10.) Hosts are EASIER to manage, they're just a text file (adblock means you had BEST know your javascript, perl, & python (iirc as to what languages are used to make it from source)).

& more... as a tiny 'sampling' & proofs thereof!

---

* :)

APK

P.S.=> Custom hosts files are FAR superior to AdBlock (which should be called "almost all ads blocked" by default, now... what a shame - they 'souled out', along with Ghostery (owned by Evidon advertisers, talk about "foxes guarding the henhouse"))...

... apk

Unjustifiable downmods vs.facts != valid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762773)

See subject-line: TRY disprove my points instead -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760847 [slashdot.org]

GOOD LUCK: Seriously - you'd NEED It vs. facts extolled there... & truth is truth, facts are facts - period!

100's of naysayer trolls have *tried* over time, each has failed... lol, yes & I love it!

* QUITE CLEARLY since all you had was an unjustifiable downmod & nothing more, by NOT disproving facts I enumerated in favor of custom hosts files over AdBlock, doing anything more than a weak downmod with no backing is all you have!

Disproving my points?

It is IMPOSSIBLE for you, to whoever "hit & run" downmodded my post that merely states indisputable facts!

(Thanks for making ME look GOOD on that very account!)

APK

P.S.=> Yes folks - ...

Especially on custom hosts files' value to end-users of them!

Yes, when the 'trolls' around here show us "the best they got" is vainly *trying* to "hide" my posts on custom hosts files' value on a plethora of levels in myriad ways in added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs, & DNSBL's) is all they have!

Hosts are clearly SUPERIOR over inferior OR faulty solutions like AdBlock/Ghostery (crippled + advertiser owned, respectively)!

Same with DNS alone!

(Which custom hosts actually safely supplement, outdo in speed of resolution, & are COMPLETELY end-user controlled too - bonus, security, reliability, & even anonymity benefits + overcoming their faults as well)

... apk

Re:I have been saying this for a long time (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42761623)

I don't want to trust "unknowns" and so I block them unless I need them unblocked for access.

If I have to unblock too many sites, I just don't use a site. Problem solved. Anything actually requiring doubleclick is evil and must be destroyed.

Adblock and Noscript are necessities for security in a world in which the browser can't provide an adequate sandbox, which is the world we live in.

Beta testers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42760585)

Can I be a beta tester for the adult site testing?

Don't Click On Me. (3, Funny)

TheRealHocusLocus (2319802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760891)

Actual context sensitive Google ads that I was too terrified to click on:

"Ball lightning: Browse a huge selection now. Find exactly what you want today."

"Ann Coulter Ringtone! Send this ringtone to your phone right now!"

Made me toss my browser cookies it did. After you toss your cookies these things stop for awhile, then build once again to a crescendo. Lately I have been getting ads with garden gnomes leering suggestively.

Re:Don't Click On Me. (1)

TheRealHocusLocus (2319802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42761073)

Some years back I wrote a small essay about another potential scenario... not the generic malware threat but one targeted to certain individuals. If you have a secret to keep that is worth killing to protect, you buy some specific Google ad-words that attract the attention of independent investigators out there who might be getting close to the mark. Lure them in by presenting a false front and inviting collaboration. Then go for the kill and make it look like an accident. Hocus Locus: Information Land Mines [breakfornews.com]

Re:Don't Click On Me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761891)

I'd like to know what kind of meds you take

Re:Don't Click On Me. (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763339)

Never underestimate the attraction of a suggestively leering gnome to the truely gullible!

Legitimacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761779)

The highest concentration of online security targets do not target pornography, pharmaceutical, or gambling sites as much as they affect legitimate sites such as search engines, online retailers, and social media.

Just wondering, who exactly draws the line to decide which website is legitmate or not?

What's an ad (1)

isorox (205688) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762501)

Isn't this an advert for some cisco snakeoil?

The message is clear. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762529)

The message is clear. You should only look at porn.

holy hell, batman, where does that put 4chan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762649)

Does this mean the safest part of the internet is /b/ ??

What About Ads INSIDE the Porn Pages? (3, Funny)

retroworks (652802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762875)

Would the risks cancel each other out?

Re:What About Ads INSIDE the Porn Pages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42763289)

Why are you looking at the ads?

I need to look at this site... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42763719)

You know, for research ;-)

Let's calculate (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763769)

So. watching porn all year is just as dangerous as clicking two ads.

Moral of the story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42765055)

...Cisco recommends to spend more time surfing Porn and download counterfeit software than anything else on the Internet. Point taken.

Users more likely to get hit with malware? (1)

dgharmon (2564621) | about a year ago | (#42766265)

'Users are 21 times more likely to get hit with malware from online shopping sites and 27 more times likely with a search engine than [if they weren't using Windows] ..

Moral of the story: watch more porn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42768437)

Yeaaaah.

backdoors, firmware, and a call to archive linksys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42768573)

Google:

Cisco router backdoor
Cisco routers rootkits
Linksys router backdoor
Linksys routers rootkits
Cisco firmware router rootkit backdoor

OT: Thanks, Cisco, now we need to trust Belkin to release firmware updates?

JQPublic: Download all of the available updates in software/firmware for all Linksys products, sign and checksum each and host/seed them because once a 'change' happens like this, from Cisco to Belkin, often pages, sites, and sw/fw disappear. Do it NOW.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>