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!

3D-Printed Gun May Be Unveiled Soon

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the print-and-shoot dept.

Technology 625

colinneagle writes "A 3D-printed gun capable of firing multiple rounds may be unveiled soon. Cody Wilson, the 25-year-old founder and director of nonprofit organization Defense Distributed, recently told Mashable that the end product of Wiki Weapon, the initiative to create an operational 3D-printed gun, may soon be ready to unveil to the public. In a March interview with CNN, Wilson said he hoped to have a printable gun ready by the end of April, so his most recent comments suggest that he may fulfill that promise. While Wilson was sparse with details, he did tell Mashable that the prototype would be a handgun consisting of 12 parts made out of ABS+ thermoplastic, which is known for its durability and is commonly used in industrial settings. The firing pin would be the only steel component of the 3D-printed gun, which will be able to withstand a few shots before melting or breaking. Wilson reportedly anticipates making an official announcement soon."

cancel ×

625 comments

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

Barrel and slide/bolt too? (5, Insightful)

maz2331 (1104901) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552677)

If the barrel and/or the slide is made of even the best plastic, I wouldn't trust it to take the 35ksi of a normal 9mm round even once. That application requires properly heat treated 4130 or 4140 steel (or 316 stainless).

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (2)

mhajicek (1582795) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552735)

I'd like to see something that takes pipe from the hardware store as a barrel. 3/4" plumbing pipe perfectly fits a 12 gauge shell.

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552803)

Like what was done in WWII?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten [wikipedia.org]

This 3D printing hype is tiresome. Go ahead, get excited over blobs of plastic and twisting words to fit a bizarre notion that you can "3D print" the same items as mass manufacturing technology.

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (5, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553127)

The people working on 3d printing guns are mostly interested in the idea because it'd be very difficult to regulate - they believe that access to firearms is a fundamental constitutional right, even a human right, that no government should be permitted to take from the people. The manufacture of guns by conventional means requires large factories and an organised distribution chain that make it fairly easy for any government to regulate, keeping the guns in the hands of only the police, army, and the criminals well-connected enough to access a shadowy underworld of illegal imports and stolen guns. Guns made with 3d printing would be accessible to anyone able to buy some perfectly legal hardware and download a model file.

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43553195)

I would have believed that guns are hard to make until I heard about Filipino gun makers.

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43553219)

3D printers *don't* require large factories and organized distribution chains? All the "3D printers" I've seen require metal parts and feedstocks that come from the despised large factories. Don't kid yourself, you're not some rugged frontiersman individualist bravely downloading files and courageously clicking "OK" on your computer (another devil from the large factories! o noes!)...

You're a tool.

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (2, Interesting)

balsy2001 (941953) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552743)

The more interesting part of this development is the possibility to make receivers on your printer. For example, the only federally controlled part on an AR-15 is the lower receiver. Every other part can be bought with no paper work (e.g., barrels, triggers, upper receivers, stocks, optics,...). There are already production models that use polymers. Factories that do this type of stuff require an FFL (federal firearms license) for manufacture of weapons. If you can do it in your house all the rules are out the door (legally you are also supposed to have the FFL, but...). You can make the receivers and buy the rest of the parts with cash for a fully untraceable gun. Another interesting point is that there are only very small difference between fully automatic versions and semi-automatic versions of the AR-15, if you can make the receiver at your house you could make a full auto version.

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552929)

(legally you are also supposed to have the FFL, but...)

you don't need an FFL to manufacture firearms for personal use, as long as they're not NFA regulated firearms (short barrel rifles/shotguns, machine guns, etc)

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552949)

clarification: i was speaking with regards to not having to get any permissions. you can manufacture NFA items without an FFL too (aside from machine guns), but you have jump through ATF hoops first to get approval and a tax stamp.

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43553085)

Incorrect. You need no permissions to manufacture a firearm for personal use, as long as it is not a short barrel rifle or shotgun, machine gun, or a weapon that falls into the AOW category. I can make as many AR-15's for myself as I want, as long as I don't give them away, or sell them, the government can't touch me, or do anything about it (legally, at least).

There is, in fact, a large industry in what's called 80% receivers, where you buy a partially milled receiver, and finish boring it out yourself with a drill press and a jig. Completely legal, with no paperwork.

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552985)

People have been making receivers on CNC machines for years. It's not a particularly difficult part to manufacture, compared to something like a barrel.

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43553101)

There's actually a fairly good bit of difference between the commercially available AR-15's and fully automatic versions. Different Bolt Carrier design, different trigger group, additional boring out of the receiver, and a part that does not exist at all in the semi-automatic AR-15. Conversion is nowhere near as easy as your congress critter or the media would have you believe. Sure, it can be done, but it's a LOT of work.

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552747)

Yes, they are trying to do a barrel and they know plastics are not the best way to accomplish this. I'm sure that is why they say it only shoots a few rounds. Last I heard they were using remote firing mechanisms to test out their designs. It will probably come with a strict warning that "this gun can only be safely fired 3 times before it becomes a plastic grenade".

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (2, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552755)

If the barrel and/or the slide is made of even the best plastic, I wouldn't trust it to take the 35ksi of a normal 9mm round even once. That application requires properly heat treated 4130 or 4140 steel (or 316 stainless).

I don't really see a problem. It just needs a label like "Warning: This item is not a weapon and is for novelty purposes only. Aim away from face".

Part of me likes the idea of a handgun that only lasts 3 shots and on any of those 3 shots may explode and remove the face of the person holding it.

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552873)

Yeah, it's like the lasguns in Dune. If used to shoot someone wearing an active melee shield, it could do anything from letting the pulse through, up to exploding in a blast that would dwarf an atomic bomb. You don't want to use a gun in battle unless you absolutely have to and are willing to take the gamble.

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (2)

Tagged_84 (1144281) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552913)

I'd prefer the label wasn't there, Darwinism at work.

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552783)

There are plenty of lower pressure cartridges, you know, and even 9mm doesn't require proper steel -- 1018 or your favorite grade of aluminum will do fine if your goal is to last a few rounds rather than a few thousand.

That said, you're absolutely right that there's a huge gap between crappy steel and the best plastics, and I don't know any round low enough pressure to make a plastic chamber feasible. So I'm being a bit pedantic, but that's what /. is for, yes?

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552809)

Why stop at one process? There's nothing stopping you from 3D printing cast or injection molds and making the wearing parts out of something else. Ever hear of porcelain guns? Or skip 3D printing altogether and use 3D milling on actual metals.

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552905)

Ever hear of porcelain guns?

yeah we all saw die hard 2, and a glock 7 is a porcelain gun from germany that costs more than an airport police cheif makes in a month.

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (1)

dbc (135354) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552827)

There are glass-filled nylon resins, for instance, that can be injection molded and have the same strength as aluminum. We're not 3D printing with that stuff, though.

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552971)

If the barrel and/or the slide is made of even the best plastic, I wouldn't trust it to take the 35ksi of a normal 9mm round even once. That application requires properly heat treated 4130 or 4140 steel (or 316 stainless).

Yeah, that's what people have been saying since the whole idea of printing guns came up.
It's about to come to fruition in spite of your protestations. Just stop blabbering about how many copper units it has to withstand to be equivalent to a nine mil. The favorite weapon of an mob hit men is a 22 caliber.

Re:Barrel and slide/bolt too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43553021)

maybe it's not taking all of it. Big round with slow-burning powder, something like 9x39, very early gas port and a loose relief regulator. I wouldn't be startled if the end result was a subsonic weapon with an effective range of ~100m.

SLASHDOT READ THIS OR BE SUED... apk (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552681)

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) -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3585795&cid=43285307 [slashdot.org]

&/or

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...).

APK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1898692&cid=34473398 [slashdot.org]
  http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1896216&cid=34458500 [slashdot.org]

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth:

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

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

---

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

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

---

And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:

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

---

As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It:

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

---

Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing:

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

---

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

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

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

---

Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads:

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

---

Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services:

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

---

Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again):

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

---

Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody:

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

---

Google sponsored links caught punting malware:

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

---

DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads:

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

---

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

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

---

Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer:

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

---

Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware:

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

---

Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge:

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

---

Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware:

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

---

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

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

---

Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills:

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

---

Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web:

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

---

Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware:

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

---

THE NEXT AD YOU CLICK MAY BE A VIRUS:

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

---

NY TIMES INFECTED WITH MALWARE ADBANNER:

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

---

MICROSOFT HIT BY MALWARES IN ADBANNERS:

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

---

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

---

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

---

London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware:

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

---

Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads:

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

---

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

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

---

Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills:

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

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

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

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

and

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

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

----

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains:

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

---

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

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

---

SECUNIA HIT BY DNS REDIRECTION HACK THIS WEEK:

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9:

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

---

Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against:

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

---

DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards:

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

---

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

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

---

DNS ROOT SERVERS ATTACKED:

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

---

TimeWarner DNS Hijacking:

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

---

DNS Re-Binding Attacks:

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

---

DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture:

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

---

Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability:

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

---

BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning:

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

---

DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs:

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

---

DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion:

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

---

High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued:

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

---

Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked:

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

---

Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks:

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

---

DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse:

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm [furtherleft.net] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html [ntcompatible.com] !

---

"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 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/1840246/Beating-Censorship-By-Routing-Around-DNS [slashdot.org] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL [wikipedia.org] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!

---

* 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):

BANNER ADS & BANDWIDTH:2011 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&cid=30555632 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1869638&cid=34237268 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1461288&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30272074 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255487&cid=28197285 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1206409&cid=27661983 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32960808 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1743902&cid=33147274 [slashdot.org]
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1913212&cid=34576182 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1862260&cid=34186256 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924892&cid=34670128 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS FILE MOD UP FOR ANDROID MALWARE:2010 -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34713952 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP ZEUSTRACKER:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2059420&cid=35654066 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP vs AT&T BANDWIDTH CAP:2011 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35985584 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2220314&cid=36372850 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS and BGP +5 RATED (BEING HONEST):2010 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS & PROTECT IP ACT:2011 http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2368832&cid=37021700 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457766&cid=37592458 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457274&cid=37589596 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1197039&cid=27556999 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 IN HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1143349&cid=27012231 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27580299 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139705&cid=26977225 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1319261&cid=28872833 [slashdot.org] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2603836&cid=38586216 [slashdot.org]

---

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.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0

PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...

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.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 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 127.0.0.1? My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using 0.0.0.0 (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 127.0.0.1, next slowest using 0.0.0.0, & 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 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 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 (127.0.0.1 &/or 0.0.0.0, 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 -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] & 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...

AND

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 -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] & 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:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878072.aspx [microsoft.com]

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:

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

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 -> http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com] , good stuff )) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files 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)) - mvps.org covers that in detail and how to easily do this in Windows (this is NOT a problem in Linux, & it's 1 thing I will give Linux over Windows, hands-down). Relatively "smallish" HOSTS files don't have this problem (mvps.org offers 2 types for this).... apk

Going to be a bit longer (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552685)

To 3D print the cartridges.

Re:Going to be a bit longer (3, Insightful)

waddgodd (34934) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552711)

that's why you use caseless ;P

Re:Going to be a bit longer (1)

WWJohnBrowningDo (2792397) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552871)

Cartridge != case

Cartridge = bullet + case + propellent + primer

A caseless cartridge still needs bullet, propellent, and primer, none of which is presently 3D printable.

Re:Going to be a bit longer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43553057)

Bullet: powdered sintered metal
Propellant: easily printable powder combined with a binder
Primer: ditto

Not nearly the most efficient manufacturing method of course, but it could be pulled off with the various additive manufacturing methods out there today.

2nd! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552693)

Second! (amendment)

then he's going to get sued to oblivion (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552695)

Why? Because his gun will inevitably fail and injure some people stupid enough to use it.

Don't be a moron.

Hilarious how all the related links are about Windows. Another shitty product.

Re:then he's going to get sued to oblivion (-1)

balsy2001 (941953) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552815)

He will go to jail before he gets sued, unless he possesses a Type 7 FFL. Making guns is illegal unless you have the proper licensees.

Re:then he's going to get sued to oblivion (3, Informative)

Kawahee (901497) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552837)

...unless he possesses a Type 7 FFL...

One quick Google search later [arstechnica.com] :

On Saturday, Defense Distributed—America’s best-known group of 3D gunsmiths—announced on Facebook that its founder, Cody Wilson, is now a federally licensed gun manufacturer and dealer. The group published a picture of the Type 7 federal firearms license (FFL) to prove it.

“The big thing it allows me to do is that it makes me [a manufacturer] under the law—everything that manufacturers are allowed to do,” he told Ars. “I can sell some of the pieces that we've been making. I can do firearms transactions and transport.”

Re:then he's going to get sued to oblivion (4, Informative)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552839)

No, making guns for sale requires you have a license. Making guns for personal use only requires no licenses at all, as long as they fall under ATF guidelines for weapons that don't need to be registered with the ATF (no assault rifles or SBRs).

Re:then he's going to get sued to oblivion (1)

drcheap (1897540) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553117)

Doesn't matter...he's got the license, and is likely going to sell them.

I could not think of an XKCD so have this intsted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552701)

They would make perfect assassins weapons,

but information wants to be free!!!

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1500/fc01440.htm

So when can we... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552703)

get a 3D printed silencer to go with it?

Re:So when can we... (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552715)

get a 3D printed silencer to go with it?

I'm waiting for 3D-printed House Representatives. One more dimension than the present models.

Re:So when can we... (2)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553025)

I had no idea 3D printers were that loud.

Winner! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552719)

...of this year's Darwin award.

"It might blow up in your hand! But have fun!"

Re:Winner! (1)

TrollstonButtersbean (2890693) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552925)

Why do 3/4 of the 3D printing articles here focus on guns? Guns are nice and all ...

But is this really the only use for a 3D printer?

Please no more eiffel tower pics either. k thx bye ...

Re:Winner! (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553135)

It's because it's a flamebait topic that's more likely to get more views and angry comments (and therefore views).

Re:Winner! (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553187)

Why do 3/4 of the 3D printing articles here focus on guns? Guns are nice and all ...

But is this really the only use for a 3D printer?

Please no more eiffel tower pics either. k thx bye ...

the most present use I've had for mine has been printing ass vases and some joining pieces for decorative furniture.

but the reason why there's so many 3d printed gun articles about this one guy is two fold, first the media "journalists" don't know shit about history(about how people used to fuel a resistance with bike shop built guns and gangs used to use home built zip guns in fifties) and who think that their readers are different than the readers of the 423432 other news sources.. so they think a cool tech + scandalous use makes for a good story, and cody is just happy to throw fuel to that fire(last I checked he operated on donations).

there's probably some catch to this design too. an all abs+ printed (minus firing pin) gun sounds just too stupid to be true, why not use pipe as a barrel? why not at least enforce the receiver portion with metal?

this didn't go as expect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552733)

someone better print band-aids, because this don't go down well.

Supply and demand. (0)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552739)

This is one of those instances where right-wingers suddenly stop believing in the market economics they dogmatically apply everywhere else. Supply and demand: make killing people cheaper, easier, and more available, and more people get killed. It's hilarious to watch gun murder apologists fly into fits of hand-waving about why lowering the cost of killing will magically decrease the amount of killing.

Re:Supply and demand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552799)

Exactly! We should increase the cost of killing by upgrading from a life sentence to the death penalty!

Or was that not what you meant?

Re:Supply and demand. (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552909)

The death penalty is typically an externality not factored into the cost of killing. Few murderers think ahead so much; or, if they do, feel certain they won't get caught (so severity of punishment, life imprisonment or death penalty, doesn't matter when mentally multiplied by a 0% estimate of getting caught). Whether they can get a gun or a bunch of booze for $20 *right now* does factor into the economic choices they make (and if the gun is $500, the booze probably wins). Now, when you increase the chances of getting caught (by increasing resources for investigation/enforcement), this has been shown to impact crime rates: increase the number of friends-of-friends that people hear about getting locked away for life, and folks' subconscious economic calculations start factoring in "I might get caught" with significantly higher weight.

Re:Supply and demand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552995)

The death penalty is typically an externality not factored into the cost of killing. Few murderers think ahead so much; or, if they do, feel certain they won't get caught (so severity of punishment, life imprisonment or death penalty, doesn't matter when mentally multiplied by a 0% estimate of getting caught). Whether they can get a gun or a bunch of booze for $20 *right now* does factor into the economic choices they make (and if the gun is $500, the booze probably wins).

So as long as we can 3D print booze as well as guns, we'll be all right. ~
 

Now, when you increase the chances of getting caught (by increasing resources for investigation/enforcement), this has been shown to impact crime rates: increase the number of friends-of-friends that people hear about getting locked away for life, and folks' subconscious economic calculations start factoring in "I might get caught" with significantly higher weight.

You just said they don't think ahead, or feel certain the chance is zero. (They're also pretty sure they're an above-average driver.) But if we lock up a few more of their buddies, they suddenly will think ahead? Or will no longer think they're the exception? Right...

I'm not saying either argument is wrong, but at least one is clearly an oversimplification.

But even so, a little more enforcement, and add the tougher (and cheaper for the state) penalty to be multiplied by the suddenly-non-zero probability, and it increases the deterrence. (I'm devil's-advocating a little here, as I'm not convinced it's worth it in terms of the occasional wrong conviction*. Just because an action reduces crime doesn't mean it's necessarily just or beneficial to society overall.)

* although if you look at how damned hard it is to get a provably wrong conviction overturned on new evidence even when the convict is still alive, it's not so much different after all.

Re:Supply and demand. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43553033)

Well, if murderers don't think ahead much, then a 3d printed gun will definitely not be an issue.

Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a 3d printer to make /anything/ work.

Re:Supply and demand. (3, Informative)

zbobet2012 (1025836) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552813)

Increasing supply does not necessarily increase demand. It depends whether the good has a fixed demand (is price inelastic). Murder is mostly price inelastic just like gasoline. When gasoline gets more expensive only a small amount less is used.

Re:Supply and demand. (4, Insightful)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552847)

Except I don't think murder is as price-inelastic as you think. Only a small fraction of gun murders in the US are in, e.g., carefully planned heists by criminal masterminds who will acquire guns regardless of cost for a pre-planned murder. Gun deaths overwhelmingly come from heat-of-the-moment domestic disputes, drug-addled petty criminals, super-depressed suicide victims, etc.: folks not utilizing near-unlimited resources and careful long-term planning skills. If a (cheap, ubiquitously available) gun is on hand at the minute of bad decision making, it gets used; otherwise not.

Re:Supply and demand. (5, Interesting)

zbobet2012 (1025836) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552937)

In crimes of passion almost any weapon will do. A gun being present generally only changes the cause of death. This is evidenced by the fact that in Britain and Australia gun bans [wikipedia.org] have had no effect on either suicide or homicide rates when isolated against already prevailing national crime rates and trends. You are also incorrect about the nature of homicide in the US. 70-85% of those murdered the US every year have a criminal record. Most major cities track close to 80% of there homicides resulting from gang violence.
I should be clear, I am not a "gun rights" advocate, but from an economics perspective it is rather obvious that murder is price inelastic. The vast majority of murders are infact crime related. The remander are largely crimes of passion for which any serviceable weapon can and will do (suicide falls under this as well).

Re:Supply and demand. (2, Insightful)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553015)

In crimes of passion almost any weapon will do.

Any weapon will inflict injury. Guns make it especially easy to rapidly inflict death (point and click!), even for people who would not be mentally prepared to keep hacking away with a knife once the blood starts spurting, or would be restrained by others around.

70-85% of those murdered the US every year have a criminal record. Most major cities track close to 80% of there homicides resulting from gang violence.

And the availability of guns makes murder easier and more efficient, even in gang violence situations. It's a lot harder to kill someone with a baseball bat than a gun --- no quick drive-by pot-shots at kids wearing the wrong colors, you've got to stay around and pummel until the target's buddies show up with their own weapons.

Re:Supply and demand. (4, Informative)

zbobet2012 (1025836) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553045)

Except banning guns in two cultures very similar to ours has had no effect on either of those from an empirical perspective. You are basically plato reasoning about the five elements right now. No matter how well you construct your thought process the empirical, statistical evidence disagrees with your result. I have linked you to the associated articles on the effects of the gun ban in Australia, please take the time to read them.

Re:Supply and demand. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43553141)

citation ?
I'll have one for you : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Changes_in_social_problems_related_to_firearms_over_time
or: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-april-25-2013-vali-nasr#

Re:Supply and demand. (1)

polar red (215081) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553171)

ZERO massacres since 1996.

Re:Supply and demand. (1)

zbobet2012 (1025836) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553237)

Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. However since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”

Re:Supply and demand. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552953)

I don't think price is what keeps people from owning guns. It's rather that they are risk-averse to accidents, or maybe just think they're icky, or don't want legal problems from an unregistered gun. Cheaper and more available won't change most of this. You can already buy a crappy pistol for under $200. This is not a huge problem even for the relatively poor.

Also, 3d-printing is not a replicator. You still have quite a bit of work assembling it (and buying ammo), which is probably hard to do if you're in a homicidal rage.

Suicides would probably increase, since they are 1) planned, 2) planned mostly by people who are depressed enough to be put off by substantial challenges [cs.dal.ca] . I would guess homicides wouldn't increase much.

Re:Supply and demand. (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553123)

drug-addled petty criminals

I really, really, really want to see stats on how many gun murders are associated with drugs. I expect that upward of 95% are. If we would just end the war on drugs, we'd stop nearly half of all gun deaths. The other half being suicide.

But the "right" doesn't want to admit the war on drugs is killing people (and they don't really care since most of them are poor with no one to speak for them) and the "left" doesn't want to admit that ending the war on drugs would substantially reduce gun violence because that would weaken any argument for outlawing guns on their own merits.

Re:Supply and demand. (2, Informative)

Robotbeat (461248) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552933)

...Murder is mostly price inelastic just like gasoline. When gasoline gets more expensive only a small amount less is used.

Like hell it's inelastic. You may wish to /believe/ it's inelastic, and "everyone" you like and talk to at bars and hang out with may repeat this back to you as if it's irrefutable fact, but I guarantee you that having a conveniently lethal murder instrument helps quite a bit. We have a very high murder rate in this country, basically the highest of the developed world. Guess what country also has the most guns per capita, by a wide margin? Correlation may not imply causation, but correlation does hint pretty strongly that there's a connection.

And we know that guns are even more commonly used for suicide; suicide is NOT inelastic to supply of convenient suicide methods, and we know this because the suicide rate in England went down dramatically when they got rid of town gas (i.e. partially burned coal containing high levels of carbon monoxide used as fuel in ovens and such, a very convenient suicide method). Having such an enormous glut of legal guns in our country also means the black market also becomes flooded with guns.

Yes, there are some people who are hell-bent on killing and will attempt some way to do it, but a heck of a lot of people kill others in the heat of the moment or at least would be far less effective at it if they didn't have such an efficient killing instrument handy. It doesn't take a ton of foresight or coordination with others to shoot and kill a bunch of people with a gun. To do the same with another weapon, like a bomb, is actually a heck of a lot harder, as Boston vs Newtown shows. Or the recent Chicago five-fatality shooting spree (that sort of thing is pretty common... fatal shootings occur multiple times a week in Chicago).

Re:Supply and demand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43553145)

...Murder is mostly price inelastic just like gasoline. When gasoline gets more expensive only a small amount less is used.

Like hell it's inelastic. You may wish to /believe/ it's inelastic, and "everyone" you like and talk to at bars and hang out with may repeat this back to you as if it's irrefutable fact, but I guarantee you that having a conveniently lethal murder instrument helps quite a bit. We have a very high murder rate in this country, basically the highest of the developed world. Guess what country also has the most guns per capita, by a wide margin? Correlation may not imply causation, but correlation does hint pretty strongly that there's a connection.

America also has a fucking huge problem with racial, economic, and cultural segregation, and oh, look, a couple of the minorities (blacks and mexicans) account for an overwhelming majority of the murders (both murderers and victims -- no, not the titillating-but-ridiculously-rare mass shootings that make the national news, but the daily death toll in the poor parts of town that's so routine it's not news even locally), but let's not get distracted by the fact that we botched Reconstruction and A CENTURY AND A HALF LATER not only can't be bothered to even try to set things right, but we've compounded it with a racially-motivated war on certain recreational drugs. No, it's definitely all about those guns.

Yes, more guns definitely does mean more attempts will succeed. But it's not like the other countries are having the same number of beatings we have murders, but fewer fatalities because it's cricket bats, not guns. By far the biggest portion of the problem is the socioeconomic divide and the self-perpetuating culture of violence on one side of it -- but nobody wants to work on that.

Re:Supply and demand. (0)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553147)

Like hell it's inelastic. You may wish to /believe/ it's inelastic, and "everyone" you like and talk to at bars and hang out with may repeat this back to you as if it's irrefutable fact, but I guarantee you that having a conveniently lethal murder instrument helps quite a bit. We have a very high murder rate in this country, basically the highest of the developed world. Guess what country also has the most guns per capita, by a wide margin? Correlation may not imply causation, but correlation does hint pretty strongly that there's a connection.

Correlation only hints pretty strongly at a connection when you have the two factors isolated. Given that USA is an outlier on many other factors, it is very much unclear which of them contribute to murder rate. It could be very high income inequality resulting in widespread poverty leading to crime, for example, and the lack of public healthcare playing into the same.

On the other hand, we don't need to compare widely different countries and try to isolate the factors - we can instead just take the same country that has enacted gun legislation, and compare the before and the after. Australia is one prominent example, UK is another. In neither case there was any noticeable statistical correlation between more gun control and lower murder rates. The best you can find is a correlation between gun control and gun crimes, but this is pretty meaningless statistics as it selectively ignores all other categories for no particular reason - and if you look at the whole picture, it doesn't actually change except for the tools/method used.

Re:Supply and demand. (2)

Dorianny (1847922) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553197)

And we know that guns are even more commonly used for suicide; suicide is NOT inelastic to supply of convenient suicide methods, and we know this because the suicide rate in England went down dramatically when they got rid of town gas (i.e. partially burned coal containing high levels of carbon monoxide used as fuel in ovens and such, a very convenient suicide method).

Prevent suicides by making it unaffordable for people to conveniently kill themselves. Now that is a real winner for society. We can take solace in our belief that we have done all that we can to prevent suicides and we can avoid all those unconformable discussions about the role that mental illness and social injustice play in people that act against their most basic instinct.

Re:Supply and demand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43553053)

Firearm forensics links bullets to barrels and shells to bolt faces and extractors. Mitigating the forensics threat requires destroying and replacing parts of your firearm (and leaving evidence in the form of orders and deliveries) which is normally very expensive. A properly cheap and above all DISPOSABLE weapon means that you can do your nefarious deeds for pennies on the dollar and get away with them like a real pro. It also makes successful organized crime much more accessible to the novice.

This 3D printed gun shit is a time-bomb if you ask me. If the War on Drugs is still happening when the project is ready, we will all end up like swiss fucking cheese.

FTFY (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552885)

make killing people cheaper, easier, and more available, and more people get killed.

Make the ability to protect yourself cheaper, easier and more available, and more people get protected.

Not sure why you want rapists and other criminals to have easier access to victims? That's always been kind of baffling. Unless you have a motive you are not revealing.

There's a reason why MLK and his supporters had a lot of weapons around. You can't have peace where one side of an equation is armed and the other is not. Then you just have a regular culling.

Re:FTFY (0)

TrollstonButtersbean (2890693) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552961)

Not sure why you want rapists and other criminals to have easier access to victims? That's always been kind of baffling.

Nice! I have never understood this sentiment either.

Criminals prey on the weak and defenseless. Police show up *after* a crime has occurred, police cannot be relied on to prevent all crime.

Re:FTFY (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552969)

Make the ability to protect yourself cheaper, easier and more available, and more people get protected.

"Protect yourself" with a gun means more people get killed. You simply shift from people losing their wallets to muggers, to engaging in gun fights with muggers. You also teach the muggers to shoot first and rob the body later.

Not sure why you want rapists and other criminals to have easier access to victims?

The overwhelming majority of rapists are "friends" and family members (who already have plenty of "access" to the victims), not some scary looking dude running out from a dark alley shouting "I'm gonna rape you!". And when your pushy creep boyfriend learns you keep a gun in your purse for self-defense, it just means he'll know an easy place to snag a gun before forcing himself on you.

There's a reason why MLK and his supporters had a lot of weapons around.

Yeah, that worked out real well for protecting MLK. And the civil rights activists who leaned more towards stockpiling weapons than peaceful protests generally ended up assassinated by the FBI, not winning civil rights victories.

Re:FTFY (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553047)

"Protect yourself" with a gun means more people get killed.

Since they would in turn be killing other people, you are in fact reducing the overall number of people killed.

Not sure why you want more people dead?

The overwhelming majority of rapists are "friends" and family members

And that makes it less useful to stop them with a gun because....

Yeah, that worked out real well for protecting MLK.

It did for his goal, which is what mattered. The civil rights movement wasn't about a man, it was about people - many people - all of whom needed protection from very real threats.

Re:FTFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43553093)

You're presuming that the people killed by your defensive use of guns would not react to greater usage of such.

Reality is that the muggers would learn to shoot first, then loot your body.

Why do you want more people dead?

Re:Supply and demand. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552947)

This is one of those instances where right-wingers suddenly stop believing in the market economics they dogmatically apply everywhere else. Supply and demand: make killing people cheaper, easier, and more available, and more people get killed. It's hilarious to watch gun murder apologists fly into fits of hand-waving about why lowering the cost of killing will magically decrease the amount of killing.

Thank you for demonstrating why I don't support the left wing

Re:Supply and demand. (2)

CodeBuster (516420) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553089)

You'll recall, or perhaps not, from your economics course that price is function of both supply and demand. The supply curve can shift right independent of the demand curve which implies a decreased price at every point along the supply curve, as when the price of inputs decreases or the productivity of their outputs increases, without necessarily increasing the "demand for murder", as you chose to put it. Ask yourself, who commits most of the violent gun crimes in America? Is it the law abiding rural gun owners with their cabinets full of rifles, shotguns and handguns or is it the poor urban criminals who are holding up liquor stores and robbing their fellow citizens with "born to lose" tattoos scrawled across their chests? If you believe that increasing the price of guns will reduce violent gun crimes then let's go ahead and try that. If a few less poor urban dwellers end up armed with cheap Saturday night specials, I won't complain. After all, they're the ones committing the crimes.

Heheh (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552845)

Have fun finding ammo right now...

Re:Heheh (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553159)

Finding ammo is easy [gunbot.net] . It's finding cheap ammo that can be problematic.

Profits (3, Insightful)

impbob (2857981) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552855)

I'm interested to see the reaction from the pro-gun groups and lobbies who are supported by major manufactures. Will they still be so keen for everyone to own a gun when those guns aren't being bought from their interest groups? Or will it become like the tobacco industry where only "approved manufacturers" (ie. the current ones) are allowed to design, manufacture and sell guns.

Re:Profits (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553199)

Gun industry already has many dozens of small companies that manufacture guns - for ARs alone there is more than a dozen of producers. I'm not aware of any deliberate lobbying efforts on the parts of major manufacturers to change that. But, arguably, if they wanted to do so, they already had an opportunity in form of AWB - seeing how most small fish dabble in precisely the types of guns that would be banned under that legislation, while the big guys (Remington, Winchester, Colt, Ruger, S&W etc) have half or more of their sales in form of more traditional hunting/sporting arms.

Thing is, for all the talk about gun lobby, individual member donations are still the single biggest source of revenue for NRA, at almost 50% of total. And a great many of those members love them their ARs, and if, say, Colt tried to shut down Daniel Defense and NRA would back them in doing so, that would result in a lot of pissed-off people from precisely the kind of audience that otherwise tends to mail a fat check every time they get another letter asking for their "help in fighting off Obama". So, not particularly likely to happen.

Teh hell (1, Insightful)

Hackysack (21649) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552863)

How is this, in any sense of a safe, sane, rational world; a good thing?

I love building, creating, discovering. The first thing that the ability to self-produce a meaningful firearm, should produce though is a limitation on the right to do so.

No one needs the ability to exercise lethal force, much less the ability to casually produce the tools that do so.

Re:Teh hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552921)

A better question is, why is the guy developing this? Whether or not he should be allowed to legally, I don't think I'd feel comfortable creating something like this and giving it to the world.

Re:Teh hell (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552999)

He's a crypto-anarchist and honestly believes that doing this showcases what a joke popular conceptions of "gun control" are. You can watch a documentary by Motherboard about him and this issue on YouTube, search: 3D Printed Guns (Documentary)

In a world where 3D printers will conceivably be a commonplace household item, gun control via the old practices simply will not work.

It also draws attention to the limitations of how freely information is distributed and exchanged across the 'net.

While I agree this is a troubling trend, I am even less comfortable with the government (and the rest of us) policing what is and is not "appropriate" speech.

What is clearly " going too far" for some of us might be perfectly acceptable to someone else, and the right to believe different is at risk when powerful issues like this take center stage....

Re:Teh hell (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552967)

        Wow. You think you live in a safe, sane, rational world? The mind boggles.

Re:Teh hell (2, Insightful)

TrollstonButtersbean (2890693) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553001)

No one needs the ability to exercise lethal force, much less the ability to casually produce the tools that do so.

The Sherriff of Nottingham and Ghengis Khan didn't need guns to exercise lethal force.

Hammer, knife, iron pipe, strangulation, pushed from a roof-top.

I would rather be robbed by a guy with a gun than a guy with a tire iron. The guy with the gun probably won't shoot if I cooperate, besides it is noisy and he can flee without worrying I would follow him.

The guy with the tire iron might crack me over the head before making his getaway.

Re:Teh hell (1)

LongearedBat (1665481) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553163)

The guy with the tire iron might crack me over the head before making his getaway.

The guy with the gun might shoot you in the head before making his getaway ...for the same reasons.

I would rather face off against a guy with a melee weapon than a guy with a gun, because then at least I stand a chance to retaliate (successful or not), simply because it's somewhat harder to dodge/parry a bullet than a melee weapon.

Also, robberies generally rely on surprise, and no robber will allow you to pull your own weapon, so carrying any kind of weapon for self defence is pointless once the robbery is taking place.

That said, I understand what another poster wrote about him showcasing the futility in gun control (or control in general).

Re:Teh hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43553051)

How is this, in any sense of a safe, sane, rational world; a good thing?

I love building, creating, discovering. The first thing that the ability to self-produce a meaningful firearm, should produce though is a limitation on the right to do so.

Then we should have had that a century ago. Firearms aren't hard to make. It's just at present much cheaper to buy a mass-produced one, so only a few people bother -- hobbyists for whom making a gun, not just having a gun, is a goal in itself. If we were to have meaningful gun control, but keep ammo readily available, we'd see a lot more homemade guns on the streets. This of course doesn't prove you're wrong, it's just that like way too many urban "makers" you have no clue about how much the old-school lathes-and-files makers can do in their barn, or how many folks with those skills are still around.

No one needs the ability to exercise lethal force, much less the ability to casually produce the tools that do so.

In the sense that everyone would be fine if nobody had the ability to exercise lethal force? sure, but that's all theoretical.

Unfortunately, in a situation where evil people DO have lethal force (maybe because they're 6'2" and train to be able to kill you with their hands -- maybe because they've appropriated tools such as kitchen knives, hammers, etc. -- maybe because, as stated above, firearms really aren't hard to make -- maybe just because we haven't yet managed to ban even mass-produced guns -- maybe because the bad guys have finagled positions as the enforcers of that ban, putting them above the law), the good people are better off having lethal force to deter them (and if it comes to it, fight them) than not.

As for "the ability to casually produce the tools", how does it matter? If it's easy enough for everyone to do it, every gangbanger will make his own gun. If it's a bit harder, one guy will specialize in it and make guns for the whole gang. (Or in today's world they'll buy stolen guns, because that's easier than either option.) Either way, they have guns.

Re:Teh hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43553071)

You're obviously not American!!

Go back to your pinko tree-hugging gay-friendly latte-loving communist utopia.

But seriously. Does this guy have a child-lock on his makerbot?

Re:Teh hell (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553095)

No one needs the ability to exercise lethal force, much less the ability to casually produce the tools that do so.

This isn't about "need" this is about being inevitable. 3D-printed weapons are the inevitable result of improving 3D printer technology. No amount of idealism about what should and shouldn't happen will change that.

Everything in life is a trade-off. If we don't want 3D-printed weapons, the only way to effectively stop that is to ban 3D printers. Is that a price you are willing pay? There really is no other choice. You can outlaw 3D printed weapons but as long as the printers exist, people are going to be printing weapons.

Just look at how well the MAFIAA has done trying to stop piracy, it is basically the same set of trade-offs. If you want personal computers and an internet, piracy is going to happen. If you want good 3d printers and an internet, then most forms of physical contraband are going to be 3d printed. Weapons, bongs or whatever. You want 3D printers, that's the price.

Re:Teh hell (0)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553215)

That's a bad analogy: copyright infringement is illegal, building a gun isn't.

Re:Teh hell (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553235)

That's a bad analogy: copyright infringement is illegal, building a gun isn't.

Maybe not in the US, but it is in plenty of other countries.

Even so, building certain kinds of guns in the US is illegal. Try building yourself a real machine-gun. It ain't practical to build one, but even if you could, it would be illega.

Re:Teh hell (1, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553139)

this doesn't actually affect your ability to make an usable firearm(google for history of zipguns, or even m3 or the british ww2 mp) nor your right to make one(getting a license in usa isn't a big deal). point being that you already have the means to "casually" produce something that shoots and that these guys are just trolling for publicity in order to get money and fame.

buying abs+ fdm machine btw costs more than buying a semi-automatic rifle(to which you could print an extended magazine though with a cheapo printer, however you could build that extended magazine from wood or metal with trivial effort as well).

Re:Teh hell (0)

tapspace (2368622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553153)

I love this guy. Americans have long held fast to one truth (which I wholeheartedly believe in):

Freedom is not free.

It's not only a piece of war propaganda, but one of the very founding principles of our great (once greatest) nation. There is a cost to freedom. The world is going digital: and that means cyberwarfare and hacking and all sorts of nefarious things. And, I know some security people who like to ask "How will we solve this?" The answer is the same as it always has been: with the sword. We are a country that believes (at least on paper) that power can only be granted by the people. So, having an armed populace makes sense.

And, I'll finish it off. I wholeheartedly believe that NRA line: the world would be safer if more good people packed heat. But, the real problem is this: our government cannot be trusted. They fuck us over and over. In my 30 years I have NEVER been rewarded for trusting my government. I have no problem with gun control in theory. But, I don't trust the government. They are constantly reneging and changing the rules. If I can't trust my government, I want my guns. Period. And, I trust my fellow countrymen a lot more than I do my government (who has been turing police against us my entire life). That's all there is to it. I want the people around me to have guns.

Re:Teh hell (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553213)

No one needs the ability to exercise lethal force

Regardless of whether one needs such an ability, the means to exercise it will always be available in society - a human being can be killed with bare hands, if the attacker is sufficiently determined. This, in turn, creates the actual need to be able to exercise lethal force in self-defense against others who would initiate such force against you. To deny that is to deny that people have a right to defend themselves.

3 Boys, 2 Adults dead in Illinois (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552879)

http://www.mail.com/int/video/topvideos/2043036-2-boys-3-adults-shot-to-death-illinois-town.html#.1258-flyercolumn-editorschoice1-3

The nephew of a small town mayor, took the mayors gun and went on a killing spree.
Guns don't kill people, the Congressmen and Senators bought and owned by the NRA kill people.

Pussies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43552893)

They should at least be fully automatic, unlike the old 3d ones. i saw watching him having to pull the trigger to fire a bullet out of the gun made me want to choke. how many clips did he have to reload to get more than 15 magazines through that thing, anyways?

He's crazy but... (1)

Tagged_84 (1144281) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552899)

I watched an interview with Cody [youtube.com] recently.

While the guy is a little nuts (ok, maybe more than a little) he does actually have a point. Gun control in the age of 3d printing is going to be virtually impossible. In the next decade we'll move from plastics to metals and from niche to mainstream for 3d printing, any 15 yr old with an internet connection and a (no doubt cheap) home printer will then only need to buy bullets to arm themselves to the teeth.

Politics are always behind the curve, it would be nice for a change to see any of them try to tackle inevitable changes to our civilization before they become an issue. FYI I'm Australian [youtube.com] and lucky enough to be in a country that has proven gun laws work.

Re:He's crazy but... (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553081)

FYI I'm Australian [youtube.com] and lucky enough to be in a country that has proven gun laws work.

Umm, no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGq-VWQCEG4 [youtube.com]

Here's the history of what happens to innocent people when gun control is enacted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa-lNiIDsFM [youtube.com]

You might also Google the US "Battle of Athens".

And, why do supposedly "progressive", forward-thinking people want to undo black civil rights in the US and give the KKK a retroactive victory in reinstating, after the huge civil-rights battle it took to abolish them, the infamous "Black Laws" from the early-1900s that forbid blacks from owning or possessing guns & ammo, only this time, it's everybody's civil rights being crushed under the heel of tyranny?

I guess the familiar and unchanging weight of slave chains are a comfort to some people who can't manage their own lives and behavior without being rendered helpless and defenseless, and told what to do and when by armed authority.

The only people gun control has ever actually worked for are criminals and governments which are often indistinguishable from each other, particularly after the general public has been disarmed.

Strat

Re:He's crazy but... (2, Insightful)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553173)

That you might actually believe your laughable, ridiculous argument is frightening.

By your reckoning, Australia should have turned into a fascist state by now; let me assure you, it hasn't. Those who hold the power do not become totalitarian by nature simply because there is less chance of armed revolution.

I will, however, counter your argument as simply as it ever could be by pointing out that regardless of how many rifles, handguns, etc. you own, you will never be able to defeat a military that has the ability to wipe you off of the face of the earth with a few keystrokes. The entire NRA could never hope to hold off the American military for more than a few hours at best when the 'enemy' has conventional bombs that can level a small city, and nuclear options that produce minimal fallout.

This is simply about personal empowerment -- the ability to shoot at those who 'threaten' you, the comfort that 'if you had to' you could take the life of another human being. It's thinly-veiled psychopathy that becomes blatant once you actually kill somebody.

Re:He's crazy but... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553217)

lucky enough to be in a country that has proven gun laws work.

Can you explain then why your gun control laws have not had any meaningful reflection in your homicide rates, or your general violent crime stats?

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html [aic.gov.au]
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html [aic.gov.au]

3D-Printed Gun May Be Unveiled Soon 33 (3, Funny)

jandersen (462034) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552903)

- accompanied by the words "Give your fucking wallet..."

Oy vey (0)

borrrden (2014802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552907)

As if guns weren't easy enough to get without a proper license...

3d printing (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year and a half ago | (#43552943)

"prototype would be a handgun consisting of 12 parts made out of ABS+ thermoplastic, which is known for its durability and is commonly used in industrial settings."

yea but its not thin slivers of plastic that happened to surface bond to a cooling surface, yea it seems strong to your hand, but not to any mechanical force, its actually quite brittle

but yay 3d printing with weedeater string!

Cody Wilson can go fuck himself (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43553039)

This man is single-handedly ruining 3D printing for EVERYONE, just because he's a gun nut obsessed with firearms. He's pushing into a gray area and setting a very early precedent that will impact the availability of 3D printing for the rest of America.

Cody Wilson is just what you'd expect from a 25-year old, gun nut, pothead, government conspiracist. He's afraid of having his weapons taken away, he's afraid of having his weed taken away, and he's afraid of his rights being taken away. His entire life is ruled by fear. So how does Cody respond? He perverts a revolutionary technology to make _more_ fucking weapons with them in violation of the law.

Fuck Cody. This is why scientists and engineers fucking hate people that take what they pour their lives into and deform for their own fucked up needs. When the 3D printer was invented people envisioned a technology that could help, that could make development rapid, that would improve our lives. Now Mr. Wilson has ruined all that and made it a tool to create weapons.

Cody Wilson is a fucking asshole.

Re:Cody Wilson can go fuck himself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43553229)

Here's hoping his first test grants him a seat of honor at the Darwin Awards!

Re:Cody Wilson can go fuck himself (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553231)

If you believe in gun rights (or at least don't consider them to be a concern), then surely there's nothing wrong with what Cody is doing, and you should rather go after the people who would take away your ability to 3D-print things for the sake of restricting guns.

if you believe in gun control, then you should be thankful to Cody for demonstrating how 3D printing is highly relevant early on, enabling regulation before someone actually designs and prints a gun for themselves and goes on to enact Newtown 2.0 with it. Surely if guns are bad, and 3D printing can be used to make guns, then 3D printing should be regulated?

Either way, you sound like a spoiled brat who only cares about his toy and is afraid that it will be taken away, regardless of who does it or for what reason.

It's the prefect gun. (2, Interesting)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43553181)

It can only fire "a few shots" before needing repair, and the muzzle velocity is probably low enough that even those are unlikely to be deadly. If a nutcase in my neighborhood was getting a gun, I'd want him to get this one.

Stricter control on real guns, and 3D-printing for the masses seem to be a good way forward.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?