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!

CISPA Passes US House, Despite Privacy Shortcomings and Promised Veto

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the in-this-house-we-obey-the-rules-of-panopticon dept.

Government 231

An anonymous reader writes with a story at the Daily Dot: "Despite the protests of Internet privacy advocates, the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) passed the House of Representatives Thursday. The vote was 288-127. ... CISPA saw a handful of minor amendments soon before passage. A representative for the EFF told the Daily Dot that while they were still analyzing the specifics, none of the actual changes to the bill addressed their core criticisms. ... But also as was the case the year before, on Tuesday the Obama administration issued a promise to veto the bill if it reaches the president’s desk without significant changes." Techdirt has a short report on the vote, too — and probably more cutting commentary soon to follow.

cancel ×


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

Veto ??? (5, Insightful)

retech (1228598) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485181)

I doubt, sincerely, that he'll veto this. Talk and actions are entirely different things. And he's got just as much ass to kiss as anyone else. He'll spin it just like everything else and say: "We're going to keep an eye on this...." Just like he's done before. But, once it's law no eyeball watching will do a damn thing to stop the ball from rolling.

Re:Veto ??? (5, Insightful)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485279)

He also said he would veto the NDAA. When it comes to power of the police state, no publicly elected official who matters is opposed.


Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485323)

With Liberty and Justice forestalled...


RoknrolZombie (2504888) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485419)

This is full of awesome.

Re:Veto ??? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485571)

We all know he won't veto GNAA.

Re:Veto ??? (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485283)

Yeah, his record on kept promises is pretty dismal, not that it really matters. Nobody cares enough to vote the Party out of power.

Re:Veto ??? (4, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485535)

I find myself at an impasse. I can vote for the party that makes the right promises then doesn't keep them, or the party that makes all the wrong promises and does keep them. This leaves me vacillating between futile hope and grotesque masochism. Where are the guys that make the RIGHT promises and keep them? Where are they hiding those guys? Oh! Right. I forgot. You can't buy the right guys. Therefore you can't sell them to the public.

Re:Veto ??? (3, Insightful)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485665)

The right people can be voted in to power, but you have to start at the local level and you have to keep up a running dialogue with them. You also have to spend your time, your money, and your energy to make sure they get elected. That's the problem with the American political system, the people are too lazy to do anything, but complain.

Re:Veto ??? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485809)

You also have to spend your time, your money, and your energy to make sure they get elected.

That's a feature, not a bug. "A republic, if you can keep it"

That's the problem with the American political system, the people are too lazy to do anything, but complain.

No, that's a problem with people.

Re:Veto ??? (1)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485817)

That's the problem with the American political system, the people are too lazy to do anything, but complain.

Once elected, they don't care about you or your complaints, only power and $$$ from their corporate overlords.

That's the problem with the American political system

Re:Veto ??? (2)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485873)

I would like to disagree with you, one of my senators is a democrat and he voted against the amendments yesterday this was a direct result of a concerted effort to contact him and let him know where his constituents stood. But it could've been NRA money that changed his mind. Only time will tell.

Re:Veto ??? (5, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#43486243)

That's the problem with the American political system, the people are too lazy to do anything, but complain.

  Once elected, they don't care about you or your complaints, only power and $$$ from their corporate overlords.

  That's the problem with the American political system

Perhaps the best way is these days, to follow the constitution. 1 representative per 30,000 people.

It's doable these days - you don't have to fit all 10,000 reps in one building - we have telecommuting, after all.

This has enormous implications.

First, pay will have to be cut dramatically - I believe the original founding fathers expected politicians to sacrifice themselves for political life. We can easily do this by making their pay equal to the median of the people they represent (not the average).

Second, corporate influence has just gone down significantly. When you have a company spending $1B on campaign contributions, that's rougly $2M per representive right now. With 10,000 of them, that's $100K apiece, or just over $3 per person they're representing. Companies wanting to buy laws suddenly have to pay a whole lot o more money. And the amount can actually be raised by individuals in the community.

Third, more local representation - because they're going to represent a smaller slice of the population, so it's a lot easier to actually see what people in the community want. And with lowered pay, they get to see the same problems everyone else in the community has.

Fourth, less whipping possible - you try keeping the entire party in line - if we assume half and half, you try keeping 5,000 people in line - it's a lot harder.

Re:Veto ??? (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485861)

That's the problem with the American political system, the people are too lazy to do anything, but complain.

Do you have any idea of the personal time and energy needed to change things?

The rich people/corporations can pay somebody else to do it for them. The guy in the street can't. Hence the system.

(Robert Heinlein's "Take Back Your Government" is basically this).

Re:Veto ??? (2)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about a year and a half ago | (#43486037)

I hadn't heard of that one from Heinlein, I'll have to read it.

I agree that its a time consuming effort, but it has to start somewhere.

Re:Veto ??? (1)

alexo (9335) | about a year and a half ago | (#43486215)

The right people can be voted in to power, but you have to start at the local level and you have to keep up a running dialogue with them. You also have to spend your time, your money, and your energy to make sure they get elected.

And once they do get elected they immediately do an about-face and turn into "the wrong people".

Re:Veto ??? (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43486135)

The guys who make the right promises, and keep them, are too smart to go into politics in the first place.

If you're a good guy, you get drummed out of that game long before you get to national prominence; good guys don't win against mudslinging liars in the political game.

Re:Veto ??? (1)

nametaken (610866) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485963)

I wouldn't be surprised if this gets used as a modest, but entirely negotiable bartering chip towards gun banning, since all of those bills recently failed.

Re:Veto ??? (2, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485599)

It also got more than a 2/3 majority [] , so it's not clear a veto would even matter. Though it's possible that some of the "yes" Dem votes here would change to "no" if Obama vetoed it, to avoid overriding a president from their party.

Re:Veto ??? (4, Insightful)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43486175)

The Senate would also need a vote of 67 "yea" tallies to override a veto. They can't even get 60 votes on a lunch order, much less a veto override - and this is also considering that the majority of the Senate is the same political party as the President.

A veto would stick.

Re:Veto ??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485719)

A 'promise' of veto is usually political speak for "include some goodies for me and mine and I'll support it". This means a veto is still possible if the politicking doesn't work out for his group.

Handing over our Rights (5, Interesting)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485191)

Amazing to see a Bill that does an end run around the Constitution by allowing a contract (a software ToS Agreement") have the full force of law with FEDERAL CRIMINAL PENALTY.

It doesn't matter if this passes or not. The message is clear enough: The rights and liberties of US citizens are forfeit and we shall be placed under the dominion of the Corporations.

Other bills will come later when this doesn't pass, and more after that until the Corporations get what they are paying for -- full control and domain over the citizens of the US and the ability to place any arbitrary rule of law upon them that they see fit and to have the US Gov't be little more than the zealous enforcer of those arbitrary laws.

I think we need this. Maybe then this country will become so incensed as to violently take down a government so corrupt and out of control that no other means exist to change it and start again -- learning from our mistakes. Or maybe the people will become even more apathetic than they are now and just lay down and submit.

Either way -- major changes are coming for the people of the US, and none of them good.

Re:Handing over our Rights (5, Funny)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485455)

Look on the bright side - cyberpunk is cool and now we get to live in it! Mirrorshades and mullets baby.

Re:Handing over our Rights (0)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485505)

Except they'll Waco anyone that doesn't do exactly what they say.

Re:Handing over our Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485995)

But that's half the fun of cyberpunk. Fight the power!

Re:Handing over our Rights (2)

phdscam (2901299) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485463)

US used to be LOT better in terms of civil rights. Gradual erosion is a pain to watch.

Re:Handing over our Rights (4, Interesting)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485619)

Gradual erosion? Hell, thermonuclear incineration is more like it. It took 200 years to make a social form that was the envy of the planet. It took 30 years to turn it into a corporate toilet. In the last ten, its looking like an SR-70 in a full powered dive. I'm just waiting to see Chuck Yeagers smiling face commenting "Nice Auger Job Rooky."

Re:Handing over our Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485473)

...I think we need this. Maybe then this country will become so incensed as to violently take down a government so corrupt and out of control that no other means exist to change it and start again...


Re:Handing over our Rights (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485495)

How is his corporations' fault? It's good old government normality: Trying to void rights, and the same way Hitler did, by appealing to emergency needs.

All the corporations did was, reasonably, seek legal protection for governments abusing this power.

The correct solution is to forbid government this power to begin with. That, more than anything else, is the core teaching of the US Constitution.

Re:Handing over our Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43486033)

Because it's the corporations that own the US government these days. Damn the constitution and anything that doesn't immediately make the corporations more rich so their executives can roll in even more millions of dollars. Politicians just go "Hmm... millions of dollars to oblige these guys (namely corporations), or next to nothing to preserve the rights of everyone else... eh, fuck it. I'm taking the millions and obliging these guys."

Re:Handing over our Rights (5, Interesting)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485543)

It won't change. There is no space for a change in the trend when the most of the places for coordinate them (or that could disclose that it is happening) are under tight surveillance, and the remaining free/secure spaces are becoming outlawed. And most people are not aware or not care that they traded freedom for relative safety (at least until is their turn [] ), they think they have a democracy in US, but it's just Lesterland []

What worries me is how all of this spills over all the rest of the world. If you think US care little about the right of their citizens, you should see how just not care at all [] about others.

Re:Handing over our Rights (1)

lorenlal (164133) | about a year and a half ago | (#43486201)

Fortunately, Mr. Rogers was able to make this a complete scumbag deal by putting him and his wife in a position to profit by it becoming law: []

90% (5, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485199)

90% was the percentage of the American people that thought reasonable background checks should have been passed.

Put aside what you think about that sort of thing and ask yourself... is this the way things are supposed to work? We live a country that is supposed to be ruled by the majority (through elected officials) with respect to the rights of the minority. The legislation respected the right of the minority and then some.

The Congress is completely unhinged. They don't represent constituencies, they represent lobbyist dollars. And we see it again with CISPA.

Re:90% (4, Informative)

sohmc (595388) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485299)

The problem of ruling by the majority is that minority interests get overlooked (see gay marriage).

The system we have in place currently is *SUPPOSED* to balance the will of the people (via election) and the morality of the elected (via legislature).

But you are still right that we have moved passed this. The sad thing is we deserve the government we vote for. Congress has a 95% re-election rate while having a 10% approval rating. Everyone hates what Congress has become, but everyone also things it's not their reps fault.

The only way to fix this is if EVERYONE votes out their representative, regardless of their party affiliation. We need fresh blood in there. Some of those reps won't leave until they either resign or die in office.

Re:90% (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485373)

The US is not rule by majority, it's rule by majority with respect to minority rights. I stated that quite clearly in my post.

Secondly, I agree with the decades old problem of "my rep is fine, yours suck." I personally don't fall into that trap (My Rep sucks and Coats, one of the biggest corporate shills alive, is one of my Senators), but I realize how people do fall into it. Everyone needs to vote out their reps across the board, and that's not a partisan thing.

Re:90% (3, Funny)

ultranova (717540) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485939)

Secondly, I agree with the decades old problem of "my rep is fine, yours suck."

Blaming other people for your problems might be just a bit older than that...

Re:90% (3, Interesting)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485801)

That's a bit simplistic. If the system stays the same, the next guy in will vote the same way. We have to get corporate money out of DC AND campaigns. When politicians are no longer beholded to them to get reelected, they won't be subservient anymore.

Another problem: the majority are stupid. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485919)

"The majority" avoid intellectual self-betterment at every opportunity. They want to get drunk and watch sports. They want jobs where they don't have to think, because that is unpleasant. The LAST thing they are going to do is think critically about the laws and carefully balance justice against implementation practicalities, or the needs of one group against the impact on another.

American citizens are, by and large, completely incompetent when it comes to self-governance. They don't understand the law, and they don't want to, so they have no business dictating what it should be.

I realize that the alternatives are horrible in other ways. But the fact is....a corporation (no matter how evil) is still made of people and still depends on dollars from "the masses" in order to thrive. If the laws they pass are too hard on the people, the people stop paying, and the corporation dies. So, there is some self-interest in passing laws that serve the greater good. Not much, not enough, but some.

With the masses and their stupidity, there is *nothing* driving them to think twice about the long-term impact of their actions.

I will take evil leaders over stupid ones any day of the week.

Re:90% (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43486157)

You can't vote out reps. You only have two parties to pick from and both represent big business. The only difference is which corporations they suck up to. The extreme right (GOP) suck up to industry and oil, the middle right (DEM) kiss IP and media ass. There is nothing of note remotely left in USA politics compared to the rest of the planet.

Re:90% (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485317)

Except you're wrong about the US being "Majority Rule".

We are a Republic, and our representatives have a responsibility to ensure than legislation conforms to the Constitution (not that they actually DO do this, just saying what they're supposed to do). They, in fact, have a responsibility to NOT vote in conformance with the wishes of the public when the public is straight up =wrong=.

Granted, there is absolutely a lot of corruption, but you are very, very mistaken that they should vote according to the public majority polls.

Re:90% (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485389)

Quote from my message...

> We live a country that is supposed to be ruled by the majority (through elected officials) with respect to the rights of the minority.

Repeating for emphasis with added bold...

> We live a country that is supposed to be ruled by the majority (through elected officials) with respect to the rights of the minority.

Re:90% (2)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485847)

No offense intended, but you are off topic here. The article is about CISPA -- something that a majority would not want (assuming you could make them aware of it). Your shouting about not compromising the rights of the minority is superfluous in this context. Maybe if your comment was placed under an article where a minority of people were having their rights violated by a new law, it might be salient, but it's not with regards to this article.

Re:90% (-1, Offtopic)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485329)

Looks like I suffered the -1 Flamebait "I don't agree with you" Mod.

Moderation abuse at its finest.

Re:90% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485503)

Oh the horrible injustice! Might as well kill yourself. There's no hope of recovering from that kind of trauma.

Re:90% (1)

JWW (79176) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485715)

That might be because you were arguing for a bill that would limit our rights in the story about a bill that is going to limit our rights.

If you want universal background checks to pass and CISPA, not to pass, you are being logically inconsistent with respect to citizen's constitutional rights.

Re:90% (2)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485359)

We have too many people in each district. [] , while they have an ancient website, does a great job explaining how the framers did not want more than 50,000 people per district. Though more focused on California, Project Represent Me [] does a great job at explaining the concept and why it is central to a representative democracy.

Re:90% (2)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485477)

If we had only 50K people in a district, there would be over 6000 people in the House of Reps.

What we need is a small federal government that exercises only its specifically delegated powers, with ALL other powers being reserved to the states or to the people. You could keep districts small for the state legislatures. I wouldn't want any more A$$#0!Z in DC than we already have.

Re:90% (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485793)

You must separate government from governance. With little representation, as we have now, we have representatives who do whatever they want with little to fear because the bar to enter office is so high. By substantially reducing this bar, the competition for entering office heats up dramatically, and at a certain level, becomes available to almost anyone. At that point, which I believe is 30,000 people, the governance of our government will be such that trillions of dollars would be cut from the budget. So increasing the annual spending on Congressional salaries by less than $2 billion, we get trillions in savings.

I had proposed a new site for TTO, but they didn't seem interested. Here is the proposed page [] . I think it does a better job of explaining this concept, as it is initially counter-intuitive.

Re:90% (0)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485381)

We live in a Republic. We are not supposed to be ruled by the majority.

Re:90% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485425)

Prime example of misleading information to the masses and repetitive attempts to push through agendas. Sure everyone wants reasonable background checks, but what are those? Were they actually in the amendment? Has a reasonable anything been ever discussed when it comes to guns? The NRA and most Americans want guns in some form (NRA and GOA want open and fully trusting all individuals until proven otherwise, which may be a bit too much) and the other side wants no guns at all except in the hand of the state (seriously, the anti-gun groups involved say they aren't extreme but their own information says otherwise).

Same in this situation. This bill is horrible, but does the public know? Are they tired of this crap enough, something evil will finally pass? How many times should a proposed law be allowed to be voted on?

Politics suck. Maybe we have too many laws or too many interests to properly govern... Of course feeling that way doesn't lead to anarchy, no being anti politics leads to revolutions that fix everything according to one man.

Re:90% (3, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485457)

That's a republic for you, the majority doesn't have full control, elected representatives do. If they then tell the majority to fuck off and choose to enrich and empower themselves instead, and this cycle repeats forever, welp...???

Re:90% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485475)

You're correct, but the point you are missing is that the minority that they are actually representing have a majority of the dollars. Dollars equals speech and speech equals political power. Sorry peon, but go listen to any Republican and they'll tell you this is exactly what the Founders wanted.

Re:90% (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485513)

Bullshit. *Absolute* Bullshit.

The founding fathers were rich, which is absolutely true and gets talked about ad nauseum.

What gets forgotten today is that they were rich and individually they were scared as HELL of someone *richer* coming along and telling them what to do. They did want to rule over the poor land owners but they didn't necessarily think the richest one should lead.

Re:90% (2, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485489)

90% was the percentage of the American people that thought reasonable background checks should have been passed.

Umm, no.

90%+ was the percentage of people polled in Pennsylvania that agreed that "requiring background checks for all gun buyers" was a good idea.

It was also the percentage of people polled in New Jersey and Virginia that agreed that "requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows".

Neither of which the bill in question did. It insisted on doing bunches of other things.

Note also that the people of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia are NOT a representative sample of the entire USA on something like gun control....

Re:90% (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485833)

I don't know what the sampling methodology was, but it's usually pretty reliable. The figure I saw was 88% as of 2 weeks ago.

Re:90% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43486091)

Note also that the people of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia are NOT a representative sample of the entire USA on something like gun control....

Having spent the better part of my life in Pennsylvania, I question whether the people polled in Pennsylvania are even representative of the entire population of Pennsylvania on gun control.

PA is weirdly similar to California - you have rock-solid islands of blue, surrounded by massive fields of red. Really easy to skew numbers depending on where you're concentrating your polling.

Re:90% (3, Interesting)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485493)

Assuming that like 94.6% of the statistics out there the 90% number isn't fudged in some way, I agree that this seems off. Although, I should point out, we were very consciously made a representative democracy and not a direct one by the founders. One of the expected outcomes is that the representatives could ignore the immediate feelings of the population, becoming accountable for their actions only as a whole at election time.

My guess is that 90% favor those checks, but not close to that many actually strongly support them. In other words, a bunch of people think it is okay to do it, but don't really care. For my part, I have no real issue with background checks per se, but I also don't see how they would have stopped any of these issues. While they *might* have dinged Lanza on mental illness, and I doubt that because he wasn't previously violent, many people who use legal firearms to kill people would easily have passed a background check of any reasonable intensity. Anyone who would not have passed the check likely knows how to get a gun from their criminal connections, or would have just stolen one.

So ultimately, while I think that background checks are probably fine, and I would probably be counted in the 90%, they really don't concern me all that much. More to the point, they still ignore the mental health issues that cause these problems to begin with. In that way, I was sad to see that the issue was predictably turned into a gun control issue and this went down predictable lines. I think a lot of energy was basically wasted in turning this into a campaign to finally break the back of the NRA, which makes it even worse now that even that appears to have failed.

Re:90% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485695)

While they *might* have dinged Lanza on mental illness, and I doubt that because he wasn't previously violent, many people who use legal firearms to kill people would easily have passed a background check of any reasonable intensity

Are you suggesting we require background checks whenever someone steals a gun? How do you propose the government enforce that? He stole his mothers guns while she was asleep and shot her in her sleep? At what point would a background check have played any part whatsoever in this?

Re:90% (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#43486095)

I didn't say anything of the sort. I don't even see how what I wrote even leads you to that conclusion.

I stated that most people who own legal weapons would have passed a background check. Perhaps not all, but most. I'm not against the checks, because it seems reasonable to get a check if you want to buy a weapons, but I think it wouldn't really do anything useful.

To answer your question directly, I don't think a background check would have played a role at all, although again, *maybe* it would have stopped Lanza from owning a weapon himself. So I think all the work and hand wringing about background checks is a big fat waste of time. Having said that, I don't inherently oppose the checks, I just think that if you link them to these shootings, you are off on a pet political tangent, albeit a popular one.

Re:90% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43486187)

You're right, background checks wouldn't have worked, but a 30 day waiting period for stealing guns would have helped.

Re:90% (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485497)

You are misreading that poll. 90% of Americans support reasonable background checks. A significant portion of that 90% think that we already have reasonable background checks.

Re:90% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485509)

I see this 90% figure thrown out an awful lot, but while I think 90% may have supported background checks, I think the main issue people had was with the keeping of records and such. I very much doubt this particular bill had 90% support. It's doubtful it even had majority support.

Re:90% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43486065)

Of course those 90% (that never existed anyway) aren't even aware 95% of gun sales already go though reasonable background checks.

Protect your privacy with a HOST file... apk (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485209)

A corrupt slashdot luser has pentrated the moderation system to downmod all my posts while impersonating me.

Nearly 230++ times that I know of @ this point for all of March/April 2013 so far, & others here have told you to stop - take the hint, lunatic (leave slashdot)...

Sorry folks - but whoever the nutjob is that's attempting to impersonate me, & upset the rest of you as well, has SERIOUS mental issues, no questions asked! I must've gotten the better of him + seriously "gotten his goat" in doing so in a technical debate & his "geek angst" @ losing to me has him doing the:


A.) $10,000 challenges, ala (where the imposter actually TRACKED + LISTED the # of times he's done this no less, & where I get the 230 or so times I noted above) -> []


B.) Reposting OLD + possibly altered models - (this I haven't checked on as to altering the veracity of the info. being changed) of posts of mine from the past here


(Albeit massively repeatedly thru all threads on /. this March/April 2013 nearly in its entirety thusfar).

* Personally, I'm surprised the moderation staff here hasn't just "blocked out" his network range yet honestly!

(They know it's NOT the same as my own as well, especially after THIS post of mine, which they CAN see the IP range I am coming out of to compare with the ac spamming troll doing the above...).


P.S.=> Again/Stressing it: NO guys - it is NOT me doing it, as I wouldn't waste that much time on such trivial b.s. like a kid might...

Plus, I only post where hosts file usage is on topic or appropriate for a solution & certainly NOT IN EVERY POST ON SLASHDOT (like the nutcase trying to "impersonate me" is doing for nearly all of March/April now, & 230++ times that I know of @ least)... apk

P.S.=> here is CORRECT host file information just to piss off the insane lunatic troll:


21++ ADVANTAGES OF CUSTOM HOSTS FILES (how/what/when/where/why):

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

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

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

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option [] )

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

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

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

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).

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

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

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

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

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

Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!

(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).

2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were: [] []

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

10.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> []

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> [] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

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

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

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


US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth: []

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


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



And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:



As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It: []


Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing: []


15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy [] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> [] ).

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

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


Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads: []


Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services: []


Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again): []


Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody: []


Google sponsored links caught punting malware: []


DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads: []


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


Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer: []


Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware: []


Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge: []


Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware: []


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


Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills: []


Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web: []


Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware: []












London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware: []


Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads: []


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

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


Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills: []


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


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

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> []

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



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

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


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

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


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



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


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

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

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

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

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


DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains: []


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



(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): []

(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: []


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


Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9: []


Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against: []


DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards: []


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




TimeWarner DNS Hijacking: []


DNS Re-Binding Attacks: []


DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture: []


Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability: []


BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning: []


DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs: []


DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion: []


High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued: []


Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked: []


Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks: []


DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse: []


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

Norton DNS -> []
  ScrubIT DNS -> []
  OpenDNS -> []

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

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

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

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

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

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows, for again, "Layered Security" too)...




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 [] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> [] !


"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

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


* POSTS ABOUT HOSTS FILES I DID on "/." THAT HAVE DONE WELL BY OTHERS & WERE RATED HIGHLY, 26++ THUSFAR (from +3 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] IN HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> [] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> []


Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

Ok - since you can technically use either:

a.) (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0


You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

Simply because

1.) = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte

(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))

MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).

Now, IF I were to use My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?

(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))

NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?

I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!

I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using, next slowest using, & fastest using 0.

And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) & a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.

So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?

I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" & then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger or line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).

In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses ( &/or, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!

On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note. Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...


2.) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7...

Sure it works in this new single point method & it is simple to manage & "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!

Thus, however?

This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'!

(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", & it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init. settings)

VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &/or IPSEC. Each of which uses diff. drivers, & layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.

Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, & chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.

(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers & registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).

I.E.-> Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down? 2 others STILL stand in the way, & they are not that simple to take them ALL down...

(Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).

On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise & proven wrong.


Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves ("The horses' mouth"), in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) from my "Point #2" above?

Thus, I'll now note how:


1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), & TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...

2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...


First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete & different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in: []

The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths


The following components process IP packets:

IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

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

APK [mailto]

P.S.=> SOME MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all:

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

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

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

D.) HOSTS files, once read/loaded, once? GET CACHED! Right into the kernelmode diskcaching subsystem (fast & efficient RAM speed), for speed of access/re-access (@ system startup in older MS OS' like 2000, or, upon a users' 1st request that's "Webbound" via say, a webbrowser) gets read into either the DNS local caching client service (noted above), OR, if that's turned off? Into your local diskcac

Could create a Gun Owners regsitry (2, Funny)

HaeMaker (221642) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485219)

Since the gun background check bill died because it was believed it create a registry of gun owners (it didn't), since CISPA *CAN* create a registry of gun owners, it should be easily defeated in the Senate.

Re:Could create a Gun Owners regsitry (5, Interesting)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485403)

Since the gun background check bill died because it was believed it create a registry of gun owners (it didn't)

No, it died because it was believed that it MIGHT BE USED to create a gun owner database.

Interestingly, where they could have put a clause in saying "It shall be unlawful to use NCIS transactions to assemble a database of gun owners", they instead put in the rather more weaselly "this law shall not be construed as allowing a database of gun owners".

Note that there is a semantic difference between "I forbid you to do this" and "I do not give you permission to do this".

Note also that the original NCIS law didn't allow such a database to be constructed, but BATF had to be recalibrated on the issue several times, since they kept right on trying to do it by various means.

Also, did you actually READ that thing?? Lending my .30-06 to my best friend for a hunting trip would be a felony, but giving it to one of my wife's cousins (whom I've never met) would be perfectly fine?! And this makes sense to whom, exactly?

Re:Could create a Gun Owners regsitry (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485931)

Just a note to those with mod points: if you're careful, you can work together to get this up to 5, Offtopic

How did it pass the House? (1)

PenguinJeff (1248208) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485239)

Fact: The Tea Party is against the bill.

Re:How did it pass the House? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485365)

The 'establishment' still rules the roost and they want it.

And they still have more votes than the tea partiers.

Re:How did it pass the House? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485471)

Can you provide a list of the Tea Party Reps in the House and their voting record on CISPA?

Re:How did it pass the House? (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485531)

The tea party's pro-transparency/anti-lobbying and small-government positions are just a small part of their overall platform, and will be ignored for all the classic neocon "good stuff" they support, like wanton deregulation, anything with a military bumper sticker on its ass and the three Gs.

If it makes any of them feel less like modding me "-1 Disagree," Obama does the same thing to scrape by with his supporters (see: Guantanamo, anything related to transparency, military accountability)

Re:How did it pass the House? (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485589)

This was a completely bipartisan affair. The mainstreams of the two parties combined on this one and so the Tea Partiers were left out in the cold because their mainstream Republican brethren didn't need them for this.

List of those who voted for: []

Not surprised... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485247)

Republicans would see the U.S changed into a society where the rich and powerful are immune to laws and everyone else is subject to monitoring 24 hours a day.

Re:Not surprised... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485305)

And the Democrats wouldn't?

Re:Not surprised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485611)

Yeah but they'd monitor you for different things. Democratic Party Dystopia would be a free-for-all, condoms-provided orgy in the bedroom and everyone would be fit! :D

Re:Not surprised... (2)

Minwee (522556) | about a year and a half ago | (#43486231)

Republicans would see the U.S changed into a society where the rich and powerful are immune to laws

Ironically, such a country already exists. It's called Russia.

Re:Not surprised... (2)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | about a year and a half ago | (#43486245)

CISPA was co-sponsored by my asshole Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger (Democrat from Maryland's 2nd District). If you think this is a partisan bill please tell me how it passed with a 2/3 majority and almost 50% of the Democrats in the House supporting it.

Enough with the R versus D nonsense already . . . this is direct evidence that both parties fucking hate your privacy.

Obama won't veto this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485271)

Look at his track record. He says one thing and does another.

His position on this will "evolve" just as it has on other things: it will evolve from something politically convenient to say to something politically convenient to do.

Re:Obama won't veto this... (1)

homer_ca (144738) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485371)

By all accounts, the fix is in. The veto threat is a nice little good cop, bad cop show for the cameras.

Re:Obama won't veto this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485943)

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately, many (esp. his supporters) do not want to awake from their dreams only to seek nightmares of reality. His track record says it clearly.

Seriously.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485285)

Can \ change posting to limit characters so we don't have to deal with this hostfile spam every thread?

so its starting to feel like (2)

nimbius (983462) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485363)

congress and senate are bayesian in nature. surely a theoretical mapping could get us a future bill that does what we want, and gets passed:
cyber: 2.0
Protection 2.0
Intelligence: 2.0
(gun|assault|weapon|magazine|clip) + ban: -2.0
terror: 5.0
freedom: 5.0
healthcare: -4.0
immigration: -2.0
reform: 2.0
and just for good measure, a few tags that appear to have some effect on the tracking and analysis process:
X-Voted-On-Before: y/n
X-Fillibstr?: y/n

On the other hand (3, Interesting)

DadLeopard (1290796) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485377)

I think one of the reasons it did get as many votes as it did was the fact that the President promised to veto it! This way they can have their cake and eat it too!

Re:On the other hand (2)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485515)

Unfortunately, the bill got 288 votes with 10 abstentions. They would only need 290 to get the 2/3 majority required to override a veto. I think We, The People have lost another round to the feds.

Re:On the other hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485997)

We still have the Sena... oh, nevermind.

Re:On the other hand (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43486273)

There's still a need of 60 Senators to vote for cloture, then 51 to vote to pass, then if it's veto'd, it would need 67 Senators to vote for it again, with any Democrat openly and publicly showing the President (and leader of the Democratic Party) the finger.

Not going to happen, if it's actually veto'd.

Re:On the other hand (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485699)

Not sure about that. What cake are we talking about? Incumbents aren't going to be voted out due to this regardless of whether it passes or not. Voters will forget and/or make excuses rather than voting for someone who respects our rights in the primaries and probably the general election as well.

"We have no real choice!" Well, perhaps that is because no one votes for the choices that do come up in the primaries.

"Well I didn't hear about those guys running on a platform of repeal CISPA, the MEDIA was keeping them down, and they wouldn't have won anyway!" Maybe if you had voted for them or shown any interest in them, done your fucking homework, the media would have realized you're interested and reported it. Maybe if you had given money to them, they would have been able to pay for ads and get noticed.

"THEY won't let us get real change!" "They" don't really have to lift a finger if none of you vote to change it, or bother giving any money.

I don't, by the way, think this is wildly optimistic. In fact, I think it's pessimistic: I don't believe there's a crafty conspiracy against us, I think we the people are just so stupid, lazy, and ignorant, that our rights can be taken away if there's a single industry who wants to claim them.

If the cake is "They'll have the issue again next time to get bribe money from the interested parties," then maybe. Of course, that wouldn't be different if Obama didn't say he'd veto it: if they didn't support it, the industries who want this wouldn't give them campaign money anyway.

Re:On the other hand (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485867)

Common game in DC. If the vote is settled, unscrupulous Congressmen will vote in the most politically beneficial way. Parties are often a "party" to it as well. If the whip knows he's got enough votes, he'll allow a Congressman with a contentious reelection campaign to vote the way that will help him get reelected.

CISPA + CFAA = Idiocracy (and death?) (1)

CresCoJeff (2901283) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485487)

Curiosity is the single most important driving force behind innovation and learning; with the CFAA threatening the curious with felony charges (and, indirectly [for now], death) and now CISPA granting unprecedented access to citizens' private data it will be child's play for copyright/patent/security trolls to imprison those of us who now act on curiosity, poking at systems to see what we can make them do with a genuine interest in innovating for the common good, and in so doing discourage open curiosity in children. In a generation or two all we'll have are laborers, lawyers, and politicians. We can't let that happen! Also notable, since GW Bush redefined military immanence to be 'the absence of threat evidence from a known danger is not the evidence of absence of threat from said danger, and a lack of the latter should be considered an imminent threat' and Obama recently re-redefined it (not formally yet, but in leaked communications) to state effectively that 'if target person/group A (regardless of citizenship) has not been proven to be unthreatening to the US government, it is an imminent threat' and the CFAA is already becoming MORE harsh, we h@x0r types could very well find drones at our doorsteps one day soon...

Re:CISPA + CFAA = Idiocracy (and death?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485563)

We h@x0r types could very well find drones at our doorsteps one day soon.

Cool, free hardware to h@x0r!

Re:CISPA + CFAA = Idiocracy (and death?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485935)

So in short, if you are in any way software, hardware (maybe wetware as well) inclined, we have to go completely dark on our comms.

The internet is dead now. Time to move to the encrypted darknets and data speakeasies.

because the government seems to think that prohibition works.

Veto-schmeto (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485551)

90% of the American people support the CISPA legislation.

Phew... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485663)

It's a good thing you've got that right to bear arms so you can stop government tyranny...

When are you going to use it?

(actually I suspect the truth of the matter is that gun owners just like owning shiny hardware and defending rights and freedom is just too much effort).

Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.

Re:Phew... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43486149)

From the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 2230 (Earth) Edition:

United States of America.

The United States of America (also known as USA! USA!) was a nation on the insignificant planet called Earth. Its most noteworthy achievement was that it kept the freedom to bear arms while cheerfully giving up every other freedom as fast as possible.

The last USA citizen was vapourised while defiantly brandishing twin automatic weapons by a combined squadron of military drones and tanks at the orders of his so-called "elected" officials (see Corporate Citizenship).

Ridiculous!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485781)

Welcome to Orwellian politics! Where the politicians and corporations live in symbiosis, all at the expense of the publius.

It IS a wonder how our politicians can agree on such an invasive policy, when they can BARELY meet eye-to-eye on the economy. I feel avarice is written all over this...

It's time we stopped pretending. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43485851)

The United States government does not represent the public.

Laws for the internet, no law for guns (1)

tekrat (242117) | about a year and a half ago | (#43485885)

So, let me get this straight... Just because I feel like I'm living is bizarro world, where left is right, up is down and evil is good.

If this were to be signed into law, there would be more legal restrictions regarding what you can post on the internet than restrictions regarding background checks, how many bullets you can spray across a crowd per second, and how many pieces of high-end military hardware you can own... fur duck huntin'.

But buying a car requires a credit check at least, buying a ton of fertilizer requires a license and forms to be filled out, and I still can't get on a plane without taking off my shoes or getting groped and naked-scanned.

Seriously, WTF????

Not one post about what's actually in the bill (4, Insightful)

mbstone (457308) | about a year and a half ago | (#43486025)

I looked in vain for something to mod up.

Nearly all discussion here is about the much-hyped topic of corporations possibly turning over private data on consumers to the gubmint in the name of cyber security.

While this may or may not be of concern, most of CISPA is an update to FISMA, the law that mandates how federal government information systems are acquired and what security measures are to be implemented.

So far zero on-topic discussion here.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?