HOSTS file - Tacky messages

[FromTheRafters]

"JD" <JD@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:MtqdnRs1mv5jWTHTnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@posted.grand ecom...
> Retired wrote:
>> JD<JD@example.invalid> wrote in
>> news:6vSdnZsl3IoZYjbTnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@posted.grand ecom:
>>
>>> Retired wrote:
>>>> http://mewnlite.com/unable.jpg
>>>> There oughta be a way browsers could detect when a site is being
>>>> blocked by a hosts file and return a friendlier& much shorter
>>>> message!
>>>>
>>>
>>> This works for SeaMonkey, which uses Firefox as it's browser:
>>>
>>> about:config
>>>
>>> Set browser.xul.error_pages.enabled to false.
>>
>> You da man! Works like a charm. There's still blank space there but that's
>> much prettier than all that "unable to connect garbage".
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>
> You're welcome! Not my solution but always glad to share what I've learned
> from this and other newsgroups. And I really didn't like the unable to connect
> garbage. Kind of defeated the purpose of the HOSTS file.

That is not the purpose of the HOSTS file anyway. It is being misused as
a filter. Better would be an actual firewall.

[VanguardLH]

FromTheRafters wrote:

> "JD" <JD@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:MtqdnRs1mv5jWTHTnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@posted.grand ecom...
>> Retired wrote:
>>> JD<JD@example.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:6vSdnZsl3IoZYjbTnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@posted.grand ecom:
>>>
>>>> Retired wrote:
>>>>> http://mewnlite.com/unable.jpg
>>>>> There oughta be a way browsers could detect when a site is being
>>>>> blocked by a hosts file and return a friendlier& much shorter
>>>>> message!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This works for SeaMonkey, which uses Firefox as it's browser:
>>>>
>>>> about:config
>>>>
>>>> Set browser.xul.error_pages.enabled to false.
>>>
>>> You da man! Works like a charm. There's still blank space there but that's
>>> much prettier than all that "unable to connect garbage".
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>
>> You're welcome! Not my solution but always glad to share what I've learned
>> from this and other newsgroups. And I really didn't like the unable to connect
>> garbage. Kind of defeated the purpose of the HOSTS file.
>
> That is not the purpose of the HOSTS file anyway. It is being misused as
> a filter. Better would be an actual firewall.

The same attitude would mean a Swiss Army knife would have very limited
functionality; i.e., it would only have as many uses as there were
blades. What something was intended for use doesn't necessarily limit
for what it can be used. The use of the hosts file as a content blocker
from a host (not a set of hosts at a domain) has been long established
for over a decade. Not only can it be used as a content blocker (ads,
intellitext), it can be used to block known malicious sites (distribute
malware or infected software, attempt drive-by downloads).

For example, I can add entries to the hosts file to block a program that
phones home that I'd want to get updates (which I don't want because
they cost money and I'm satisfied with the old already-paid-for
version). The product is a media stream capture program so it obviously
has to make Internet connections to capture those streams so I cannot
create a blanket rule to block all network connections by the product,
but I can keep it from phoning home. It also does make an IP-only
connect to phone home which I block using IPSec. That's all built into
Windows so I don't need to install or rely on 3rd party software which
is what you suggest. In a similar vein, I use SpywareBlaster (free
non-resident version) to update the registry to add class IDs with their
killbit set to prevent known malware from getting loaded from registry
reference). Nothing of SpywareBlaster has to run after the killbit
update because this is a feature already built into Windows. I see no
reason to rely on the requirement of installing 3rd party software,
keeping it updated, incurring software conflicts or behavior anomalies
or usage limitations on my host when there already exist inbuilt
solutions in Windows. I also use SRPs (software restriction policies)
already built into Windows instead of having to install 3rd party
HIPS-enabled security products to define the same rules inside of them
that I can do using SRPs.

Alas, not all firewall products include a URL blocking feature so what
you mention may not be available. Not many users considering use of or
using the hosts file are operating their own gateway host or firewall
host/appliance to include URL blocking. Of course, URL blocking only
works on hostnames since the idea is to intercept the DNS lookups. A
user specifying an IP address would circumvent any URL blocking. Yes,
you can incorporate IP blocking, too, but IPs change quicker than
hostnames as sites, webhosters, ISP, or sites move around their hosts in
their network or choose to use load balancing. I've found IP address
blocking requires more maintenance (updates) than URL blocking but many
security products only give you IP blocking.

Personally I find the hosts file to be cumbersome but then few users of
pre-compiled hosts files review their content. Users of pre-compiled
hosts files let someone else decide what should get blocked to their
host. For example, it takes over 50 entries for Doubleclick in the MVPs
hosts file. It is also possible that any hostname will be accepted by a
nameserver to resolve to an IP address. Whatever you ask for a host
lookup will return an IP address from their nameserver which means there
is nearly an infinite number of hosts employed by that domain and no
hosts file will cover them all (and even attempting such would result in
slowing down the DNS lookup). The hosts file works on hosts, not
domains.

If you use a firewall, AV, or other security product that provides URL
blocking, you can block entire domains. For example, I can use Avast's
URL blocking to get rid of ANY hosts at a domain, not just a few;
however, Avast hasn't the foresight to include import/export
functionality to allow exporting a backup of the list of URL block
strings so a subsequent fresh install can have the list imported. The
free version of Online Armor won't let you export/import its settings.
So while they have URL blocking, you'll lose your own list of blockings
that you compiled over time and experience.

Alternatively, instead of local URL blocking, you can have it done by
your DNS provider. OpenDNS, for example, will let you select categories
of sites to block. Their free account lets you define up to 50 URL
block strings (so you could specify domains instead of hosts). Alas,
their free account only lets you define 50 URL block strings but for
most users that are compiling their own block list this is sufficient.
To force all your users to use OpenDNS (or some other specific DNS
provider where filtering is available), you would have to block any port
53 traffic out of your router, gateway host, or firewall host/appliance
that doesn't target OpenDNS' DNS server.

The OP apparently only cares about URL blocking (mostly its effect of
displaying a message in the area of the web page for the blocked
content) in the context of a web browser. While Firefox can do ad
blocking using an extension and the config option eliminates the error
text for the blocked content, IE8 can also block sites or domains using
its InPrivate Filtering feature (but you have to compile and import the
..xml file along with a registry edit to have IE8 always load with
InPrivate Filtering enabled). Since I build that .xml file, I know
what's getting blocked, I can easily disable the blocking (by
temporarily disabling InPrivate Filtering in IE8), and I'm not concerned
in the URL blocking strings can be exported from a security product so
they can be imported later in a fresh install.

[FromTheRafters]

"VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote in message
news:j8kfng$4e4$1@news.albasani.net...
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> "JD" <JD@example.invalid> wrote in message

[...]

>>> You're welcome! Not my solution but always glad to share what I've learned
>>> from this and other newsgroups. And I really didn't like the unable to
>>> connect
>>> garbage. Kind of defeated the purpose of the HOSTS file.
>>
>> That is not the purpose of the HOSTS file anyway. It is being misused as
>> a filter. Better would be an actual firewall.
>
> The same attitude would mean a Swiss Army knife would have very limited
> functionality; i.e., it would only have as many uses as there were
> blades.

Sure, you *could* use it as a tack hammer, but upon expounding on
its shortcomings in that area it pays to realize it was not designed
with that in mind.

Something that *is* designed with that in mind will do a much better
job as you noted.

[...]

> Avast hasn't the foresight to include import/export
> functionality to allow exporting a backup of the list of URL block
> strings so a subsequent fresh install can have the list imported. The
> free version of Online Armor won't let you export/import its settings.
> So while they have URL blocking, you'll lose your own list of blockings
> that you compiled over time and experience.

Well, that sucks.

[...].

[M.L.]

>> The same attitude would mean a Swiss Army knife would have very limited
>> functionality; i.e., it would only have as many uses as there were
>> blades.
>
>Sure, you *could* use it as a tack hammer, but upon expounding on
>its shortcomings in that area it pays to realize it was not designed
>with that in mind.
>
>Something that *is* designed with that in mind will do a much better
>job as you noted.

Only if it's as portable, easy to use and cost effective as the Swiss
army knife.

[VanguardLH]

M.L. wrote:

>>> The same attitude would mean a Swiss Army knife would have very limited
>>> functionality; i.e., it would only have as many uses as there were
>>> blades.
>>
>>Sure, you *could* use it as a tack hammer, but upon expounding on
>>its shortcomings in that area it pays to realize it was not designed
>>with that in mind.
>>
>>Something that *is* designed with that in mind will do a much better
>>job as you noted.
>
> Only if it's as portable, easy to use and cost effective as the Swiss
> army knife.

What's not portable about copying a file to a USB thumb drive and then
copying it elsewhere, or synching to a copy stored online? No installer
needed. How hard is it to do a copy operation (versus installation)?
How cost effective is something that's free and works well?

[FromTheRafters]

"M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:ei4ta792mlj04ljkftu3qhi2ltpjbmijg4@4ax.com...
>
>
>>> The same attitude would mean a Swiss Army knife would have very limited
>>> functionality; i.e., it would only have as many uses as there were
>>> blades.
>>
>>Sure, you *could* use it as a tack hammer, but upon expounding on
>>its shortcomings in that area it pays to realize it was not designed
>>with that in mind.
>>
>>Something that *is* designed with that in mind will do a much better
>>job as you noted.
>
> Only if it's as portable, easy to use and cost effective as the Swiss
> army knife.

http://tftscdn.nexus404.com/Blog/wp-...humb205140.jpg

[Buffalo]

FromTheRafters wrote:
> "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ei4ta792mlj04ljkftu3qhi2ltpjbmijg4@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>>> The same attitude would mean a Swiss Army knife would have very
>>>> limited functionality; i.e., it would only have as many uses as
>>>> there were blades.
>>>
>>> Sure, you *could* use it as a tack hammer, but upon expounding on
>>> its shortcomings in that area it pays to realize it was not designed
>>> with that in mind.
>>>
>>> Something that *is* designed with that in mind will do a much better
>>> job as you noted.
>>
>> Only if it's as portable, easy to use and cost effective as the Swiss
>> army knife.
>
>
http://tftscdn.nexus404.com/Blog/wp-...humb205140.jpg

Neat, I want one!!
Buffalo

[David H. Lipman]

From: "FromTheRafters" <erratic.howard@gmail.com>

> "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message news:ei4ta792mlj04ljkftu3qhi2ltpjbmijg4@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>>> The same attitude would mean a Swiss Army knife would have very limited
>>>> functionality; i.e., it would only have as many uses as there were
>>>> blades.
>>>
>>> Sure, you *could* use it as a tack hammer, but upon expounding on
>>> its shortcomings in that area it pays to realize it was not designed
>>> with that in mind.
>>>
>>> Something that *is* designed with that in mind will do a much better
>>> job as you noted.
>>
>> Only if it's as portable, easy to use and cost effective as the Swiss
>> army knife.
>
> http://tftscdn.nexus404.com/Blog/wp-...humb205140.jpg

Able to do many things but probably not very good at doing any one of them.


--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Dustin]

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
news:j8n530025a2@news1.newsguy.com:

> From: "FromTheRafters" <erratic.howard@gmail.com>
>
>> "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ei4ta792mlj04ljkftu3qhi2ltpjbmijg4@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The same attitude would mean a Swiss Army knife would have very
>>>>> limited functionality; i.e., it would only have as many uses as
>>>>> there were blades.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, you *could* use it as a tack hammer, but upon expounding on
>>>> its shortcomings in that area it pays to realize it was not designed
>>>> with that in mind.
>>>>
>>>> Something that *is* designed with that in mind will do a much better
>>>> job as you noted.
>>>
>>> Only if it's as portable, easy to use and cost effective as the Swiss
>>> army knife.
>>
>> http://tftscdn.nexus404.com/Blog/wp-...imate-geeks-mu
>> lti-tool-hammerTFTSThumb205140.jpg
>
> Able to do many things but probably not very good at doing any one of
> them.

It looks like the tools you can snag at Lowes. If it's built like them,
you're dead on the mark.


--
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.