MVPS HOSTS File Update January-18-2012

[s|b]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:47:31 -0500, siljaline wrote:

> The MVPS HOSTS file was recently updated [January-18-2012]
> http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
>
> Download: hosts.zip (147 kb)
> http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.zip

Tnx!

--
s|b

[siljaline]

s|b wrote:

> Tnx!

You're welcome, enjoy the file.

Silj


--
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
-- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
- Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_

[Virus Guy]

siljaline wrote:

> > Much more so under the win9x flavors.
>
> The file system on Windows 9 x is not the same Kernel as
> XP on up.

I'm not quite sure why you're mixing the term "kernel" with file-system,
but if you are referring to the 4-GB file-size limitation of FAT32 -
I'll go out on a limb and say that Win-98 can probably handle most HOSTS
files regardless of size.

> Regardless of file size on a 9 x PC there should be no noticeable
> slowness. This is moot since no one should be running a 9x PC these
> days unless it's for ...

Does the taste of Microsoft's koolaid get better with time?

Oh, sorry, I forgot. NT is made from the finest, most expensive
threads. I must be the only one that hasn't seen the emperor's new
clothes.

Getting back to my original point -

What's the MVPS policy regarding inclusion of Google's various
ad-serving and behavior-tracking machines in the MVPS HOSTS file?

I've added every google host-name I can find to my (arguably dated) copy
of the MVPS hosts file - while still allowing the basic google search
page and google-maps to operate that is. I've also added every twitter
and feacesbook host I can find to completely rid by browser of those
web-cancers.

So I guess it's conceivable that my "enhancements" could be why I'm
seeing increasing bogging while browsing.

[Dustin]

Virus Guy <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F181AFF.1ACCF5C2@Guy.com:

> Dustin wrote:
>
>> >> I'm finding that browsing is becoming way to slow when the
>> >> browser is trying to render pages containing lots of blocked
>> >> domains.
>> >
>> > Set your DNS to manual in Services >
>> > <http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm#Note>
>> > A Hosts file larger than 135 kb slows down a Windows PC regardless
>> > of OS.
>>
>> Much more so under the win9x flavors.
>
> I believe I've read in the past that win-9x is much better able to
> handle large hosts files compared to XP.

You should re-read what you thought you read then, as you're wrong on this
one. Surprise surprise...




--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[Dustin]

"siljaline" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in news:jf9g4q$4oa$1@dont-email.me:

> Dustin wrote:
> <snipped>
>
>> Much more so under the win9x flavors.
>
> The file system on Windows 9 x is not the same Kernel as
> XP on up.

I wasn't discussing the file system. Fat32/ntfs have no trouble with a few
hundred kilobytes. The DNS services however... Aren't so impressed.

> Regardless of file size on a 9 x PC there should be no noticeable
> slowness. This is moot since no one should be running a 9 x PC these
> days unless it's for running Beta software, otherwise you'd be in the
> Stoneage.

Again,

If you have thousands of entries redirected to loopback, it will take your
box a moment or two to resolve them. (IE: line by line reading on whatever
domain you enter to compare it to your custom hosts file.) While the
access time isn't long, it's far from "not noticable" if you have a huge
file.


--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[Virus Guy]

Dustin wrote:

> > I believe I've read in the past that win-9x is much better able to
> > handle large hosts files compared to XP.
>
> You should re-read what you thought you read then, as you're wrong on
> this one. Surprise surprise...

Did you not read the follow-ups to that post before replying?

Win-XP and higher has well known problems with hosts files larger than
100 - 135 kb when the DNS Client service is running. The DNS Client is
an automatic-startup service by default.

Windows 98 has no such service.

Now take your foot out of your mouth.

[Virus Guy]

I wrote:

> I've added every google host-name I can find to my (arguably dated)
> copy of the MVPS hosts file - while still allowing the basic google
> search page and google-maps to operate that is. I've also added
> every twitter and feacesbook host I can find to completely rid by
> browser of those web-cancers.
>
> So I guess it's conceivable that my "enhancements" could be why
> I'm seeing increasing bogging while browsing.

See also:

http://blog.patrickmeenan.com/

============
Browsing the broken web

For the purposes of this example I'll be "breaking" the twitter,
Facebook and Google buttons as well as the Google API server (jquery,
etc) and Google Analytics.

Now that we have a blackhole server, breaking the web is just a matter
of populating some entries in your hosts file
(C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts on windows). Go ahead and add
these entries and save the updated hosts file:


72.66.115.13 ajax.googleapis.com
72.66.115.13 apis.google.com
72.66.115.13 www.google-analytics.com
72.66.115.13 connect.facebook.net
72.66.115.13 platform.twitter.com

....and go browse the web. It shouldn't take you long to find a site
that is infuriatingly painful to browse. Congratulations, you just
experienced a Frontend SPOF - now go fix it so your users don't have to
feel the same pain (assuming it is a site you control, otherwise just
yell at the owner).
==============

The IP 72.66.115.13 is blackhole.webpagetest.org, a "server" set up by
the author such that it can be routed to, but drops all connections. I
don't know why that was necessary (or what the difference is) in using
local host (127.0.0.1) which I would think would give the same behavior.

I do have all the above host-names in my HOSTS file, BTW.

I would really appreciate it if someone here can tell me the purpose of
ajax.googleapis.com. As in - what is it designed to serve up - and how
does my web-experience change if I block it.

[Dustin]

Virus Guy <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F181EED.EE8E684@Guy.com:

> I've been running my win-98 machines for years with hosts files that
> exceed 700/800 kb in size. It's only within the past year that web
> browsing is really getting bogged down by site-blocking caused by
hosts
> blocking.

Which only makes sense, As your machine has to read the hosts file line
by line (unless it's already cached it) every single time you enter a
domain. I don't care how fast/slow your machine is, trolling hundreds of
entries will slow it down a smidgeon.

As far as DNS services go, your win9x machine still understands what DNS
is, and will still make use of it. It can't provide DNS routing services
to other machines without 3rd party software, but it still makes use of
DNS as a client to resolve and let you surf.

With regard to running windows 98 for years, I don't see the point in
doing so from a technical perspective. You aren't more secure than an NT
box, although I realize for some silly reason you think you are. Fact
is, short of some specific NT services, your win9x box is just as
0wnable as any other machine. In some cases, much much more so. It's
easier for a virus to totally 0wn a win9x box because that machine has
poor/almost not present permissions on files. FAT32 does have drawbacks
from a security perspective, but you wouldn't know that.

A properly configured system although not 100% hackproof is still
considered secure for most purposes. Running seriously OUTDATED OS and
other apps tho, is asking for it. I know you don't believe anything I
and others tell you, but could you please do one tiny favor? Stop
proclaiming win9x is safer. it isn't.




--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[Dustin]

Virus Guy <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F18B3FE.B6F77947@Guy.com:

> I'm not quite sure why you're mixing the term "kernel" with
> file-system, but if you are referring to the 4-GB file-size
> limitation of FAT32 - I'll go out on a limb and say that Win-98 can
> probably handle most HOSTS files regardless of size.

On a line by line basis, yes.

> Does the taste of Microsoft's koolaid get better with time?

Please explain... what you mean by this?

> Oh, sorry, I forgot. NT is made from the finest, most expensive
> threads. I must be the only one that hasn't seen the emperor's new
> clothes.

Well, it's hardly a secret that you don't know much about the subjects you
profess to have knowledge of.

> So I guess it's conceivable that my "enhancements" could be why I'm
> seeing increasing bogging while browsing.

It's a simple matter really. The more dummy domains you add to the file,
the more lines windows gets to scan real quick every single time you try
to visit a domain.

Why not just run firefox and noscript?


--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by,
and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[FromTheRafters]

Dustin wrote:
> Virus Guy<Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F181EED.EE8E684@Guy.com:
>
>> I've been running my win-98 machines for years with hosts files that
>> exceed 700/800 kb in size. It's only within the past year that web
>> browsing is really getting bogged down by site-blocking caused by
> hosts
>> blocking.
>
> Which only makes sense, As your machine has to read the hosts file line
> by line (unless it's already cached it) every single time you enter a
> domain. I don't care how fast/slow your machine is, trolling hundreds of
> entries will slow it down a smidgeon.
>
> As far as DNS services go, your win9x machine still understands what DNS
> is, and will still make use of it. It can't provide DNS routing services
> to other machines without 3rd party software, but it still makes use of
> DNS as a client to resolve and let you surf.
>
> With regard to running windows 98 for years, I don't see the point in
> doing so from a technical perspective. You aren't more secure than an NT
> box, although I realize for some silly reason you think you are. Fact
> is, short of some specific NT services, your win9x box is just as
> 0wnable as any other machine. In some cases, much much more so. It's
> easier for a virus to totally 0wn a win9x box because that machine has
> poor/almost not present permissions on files. FAT32 does have drawbacks
> from a security perspective, but you wouldn't know that.
>
> A properly configured system although not 100% hackproof is still
> considered secure for most purposes. Running seriously OUTDATED OS and
> other apps tho, is asking for it. I know you don't believe anything I
> and others tell you, but could you please do one tiny favor? Stop
> proclaiming win9x is safer. it isn't.
>
Thank you, and you're right - he won't believe you nor understand why
that is.