HOSTS File Question..

[JD]

I thought I posted this once before but it didn't ever show up so I'll
try again.

On more than one web page, I can't connect to Live Chat because it goes
through liveperson.net.

Examples: https://www.1800contacts.com/ Chat with us.
http://www.iherb.com/info/Contact I don't even see the chat button but
I think that's a setting in my SeaMonkey prefs that blocks an image of a
link that is blocked by my HOSTS file.

I see the following entries in my HOSTS file:

127.0.0.1 sales.liveperson.net #[Tracking.Cookie]
127.0.0.1 sec1.liveperson.net
127.0.0.1 server.iad.liveperson.net

Is it really necessary to block liveperson.net or is it over-kill?

--
JD..

[Timmy]

JD wrote ...

>
> I thought I posted this once before but it didn't ever show up so I'll
> try again.
>
> On more than one web page, I can't connect to Live Chat because it goes
> through liveperson.net.
>
> Examples: https://www.1800contacts.com/ Chat with us.
> http://www.iherb.com/info/Contact I don't even see the chat button but
> I think that's a setting in my SeaMonkey prefs that blocks an image of a
> link that is blocked by my HOSTS file.
>
> I see the following entries in my HOSTS file:
>
> 127.0.0.1 sales.liveperson.net #[Tracking.Cookie]
> 127.0.0.1 sec1.liveperson.net
> 127.0.0.1 server.iad.liveperson.net
>
> Is it really necessary to block liveperson.net or is it over-kill?


That site isn't in either MPVS or Peter Lowes hosts lists

From liveperson.net

Live Chat
Our awarding-winning live chat service has a proven track record in
helping companies increase sales and improve customer service. Close
sales with visitors who hesitate on product pages or in the shopping
cart by inviting them to chat with a product specialist Increase order
values by cross-selling or upselling complementary products or
accessories Improve first contact resolution through hands-on assistance
from a support representative

Can't see them doing anything naughty.

[JD]

Timmy wrote:
> JD wrote ...
>
>>
>> I thought I posted this once before but it didn't ever show up so I'll
>> try again.
>>
>> On more than one web page, I can't connect to Live Chat because it goes
>> through liveperson.net.
>>
>> Examples: https://www.1800contacts.com/ Chat with us.
>> http://www.iherb.com/info/Contact I don't even see the chat button but
>> I think that's a setting in my SeaMonkey prefs that blocks an image of a
>> link that is blocked by my HOSTS file.
>>
>> I see the following entries in my HOSTS file:
>>
>> 127.0.0.1 sales.liveperson.net #[Tracking.Cookie]
>> 127.0.0.1 sec1.liveperson.net
>> 127.0.0.1 server.iad.liveperson.net
>>
>> Is it really necessary to block liveperson.net or is it over-kill?
>
>
> That site isn't in either MPVS or Peter Lowes hosts lists
>
> From liveperson.net
>
> Live Chat
> Our awarding-winning live chat service has a proven track record in
> helping companies increase sales and improve customer service. Close
> sales with visitors who hesitate on product pages or in the shopping
> cart by inviting them to chat with a product specialist Increase order
> values by cross-selling or upselling complementary products or
> accessories Improve first contact resolution through hands-on assistance
> from a support representative
>
> Can't see them doing anything naughty.
>

Where do you get the MVPS HOSTS file you say it's not in?

The HOSTS file I use:

This MVPS HOSTS file is a free download from:
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

I just downloaded the latest version, still there:

127.0.0.1 www.liveperson.com
127.0.0.1 liveperson.net #[WebBug]
127.0.0.1 sales.liveperson.net #[Tracking.Cookie]
127.0.0.1 server.iad.liveperson.net

--
JD..

[Timmy]

JD wrote ...

No problem accessing
http://www.liveperson.net/

[Virus Guy]

JD wrote:

> On more than one web page, I can't connect to Live Chat because it
> goes through liveperson.net.
>
> I see the following entries in my HOSTS file:
>
> 127.0.0.1 sales.liveperson.net #[Tracking.Cookie]
> 127.0.0.1 sec1.liveperson.net
> 127.0.0.1 server.iad.liveperson.net
>
> Is it really necessary to block liveperson.net or is it over-kill?

I have those same entries in my hosts file.

I have also seen my browser attempt to contact liveperson.net for no
obvious reason. I wasn't browsing any page or site with the intention
to perform any sort of live-chat, or that it was even obvious that the
page had any sort of live-chat functionality.

So I can see why it's in the mvps hosts file.

I would say that it's probably safe enough to remove from the hosts file
- if you really do need it to perform a "live-chat".

[JD]

Virus Guy wrote:
> JD wrote:
>
>> On more than one web page, I can't connect to Live Chat because it
>> goes through liveperson.net.
>>
>> I see the following entries in my HOSTS file:
>>
>> 127.0.0.1 sales.liveperson.net #[Tracking.Cookie]
>> 127.0.0.1 sec1.liveperson.net
>> 127.0.0.1 server.iad.liveperson.net
>>
>> Is it really necessary to block liveperson.net or is it over-kill?
>
> I have those same entries in my hosts file.
>
> I have also seen my browser attempt to contact liveperson.net for no
> obvious reason. I wasn't browsing any page or site with the intention
> to perform any sort of live-chat, or that it was even obvious that the
> page had any sort of live-chat functionality.
>
> So I can see why it's in the mvps hosts file.
>
> I would say that it's probably safe enough to remove from the hosts file
> - if you really do need it to perform a "live-chat".
>

Both web pages also had toll free numbers so I just called them and
passed on the live chat.

I also use a program called Ghostery (http://www.ghostery.com/)
and it also blocks liveperson. Ghostery provides links to more
information about liveperson:

Data Collected:
Anonymous (Analytics, Browser Information, Demographic Data)
Pseudonymous (IP Address (EU PII))

Data Sharing:
Aggregate data is shared with 3rd parties.

Data Retention:
Undisclosed

--
JD..

[VanguardLH]

JD wrote:

> I thought I posted this once before but it didn't ever show up so I'll
> try again.
>
> On more than one web page, I can't connect to Live Chat because it goes
> through liveperson.net.
>
> Examples: https://www.1800contacts.com/ Chat with us.
> http://www.iherb.com/info/Contact I don't even see the chat button but
> I think that's a setting in my SeaMonkey prefs that blocks an image of a
> link that is blocked by my HOSTS file.
>
> I see the following entries in my HOSTS file:
>
> 127.0.0.1 sales.liveperson.net #[Tracking.Cookie]
> 127.0.0.1 sec1.liveperson.net
> 127.0.0.1 server.iad.liveperson.net
>
> Is it really necessary to block liveperson.net or is it over-kill?

You see the following because what you omitted to mention is that you
are using someone else's pre-compiled 'hosts' file, like maybe the one
from MVPs. There will be lots in entries in those pre-compiled 'hosts'
files with which you may not agree but are you really going to review
the thousands upon thousands of entries in those 'hosts' files?

Because you didn't compile the list in the 'hosts' file, because they
must specify hostnames and not just domains (and domains can change
hostnames and even accept any hostname to resolve to an internal host
which means you'll never have a complete list for that domain), and
because there is no easy means within the web browser to switch on/off
the use of the 'hosts' file, it is an overreaching and clumsy approach
to ad/content blocking. If you use an ad-blocker with your web browser
(or IE's Inprivate Filtering feature), you can still review the list of
blocks to determine if you want them plus it's easy to switch on/off the
blocking for when it gets in your way. While I build my own IE8 list
for its Inprivate Filter (since I don't agree with many of the entries
in the pre-compiled 'hosts' file), there is one pre-built list over at
http://www.quero.at/adblock_ie_xml.php. There was another I found in
some forum via a Google search but I don't how often its author
maintains his list. There are also some differences in interpreting how
the entries are to be coded in the XML file. Most users don't
understand regex so they add entries like ".doubleclick.net" which is
incorrect because it will match on "udoubleclick.net" since the period
character means match on any 1 character in that position. You use
"\.doubleclick\.net" to escape the special characters used by regex.

If you don't agree with a block listed in the pre-compiled 'hosts' file,
start to build your own or edit someone else's pre-compiled list you
chose to use.

Personally I see no reason to add hosts into the 'hosts' file just to
block tracking cookies. What web browser nowadays doesn't have
sufficient options to let users configure their web browsers to flush
all cookies on exit from the web browser? If you don't want some site
(you visit later) from tracking where you've been before during a web
browser session, add a toolbar button that exercises your web browser's
purge function. Besides, focusing on tracking cookies does nothing to
prevent tracking by using DOM and local storage available to all newer
web browsers where a site can store info on your host - unless you
disable those features in the web browser (and I do). In fact, you may
need those tracking cookies for a site to function properly since they
use them to monitor your session there and qualify if you can visit
other of their web pages (since Referrer isn't reliable anymore)
although they can also track by using a handle attribute on the web
browser window they set before letting you visit another page that then
inspects that attribute's value.

Blocking tracking cookies is a waste of space in pre-compiled 'hosts'
files and the bloated size means longer to scan through the 'hosts' file
to check if the lookup succeeds there rather than having to do a DNS
lookup. Scanning in linear from top to bottom. No memory copy is saved
to speedup the scan. Everytime there is a hostname to lookup, the web
browser starts at the top of this list, has to parse its way down, and
that takes time. With 'hosts' file reaching many thousands of entries,
this slows the lookup process (not a lot but each scan takes time).

If you're going to use someone else's pre-compiled 'hosts' file then you
are allocating to them the authority of deciding where you can visit or
to where your web browser connects. Extremely few users of pre-compiled
'hosts' files ever review the list to determine if they agree or
disagree with all of the entries.

[Virus Guy]

VanguardLH wrote the following novel:

> Blocking tracking cookies is a waste of space in pre-compiled
> 'hosts' files and the bloated size means longer to scan through
> the 'hosts' file to check if the lookup succeeds there rather
> than having to do a DNS lookup. Scanning in linear from top
> to bottom. No memory copy is saved to speedup the scan.

On my win-98 system, my hosts file is about 630 kb in size, and every
application (every browser instance) seems to get it's own copy of the
hosts file cached in memory.

I've noticed no difference in DNS lookup times if I have the HOSTS file
active or not.

In fact, I have added a lot of the commonly-used hosts and sites that I
browse to to my hosts file - just so that it's FASTER to access them vs
doing a relatively slow internet DNS lookup. Scanning through a few
thousand lines (about 17,000 in my case) is fast compared to the 10 or
20 ms it takes to do a DNS lookup (and that's a FAST lookup).

I think it's a lot of bull**** saying that the hosts file slows down
your DNS lookups. I do know that on XP systems that its a good idea to
disable the DNS Server Service if your hosts file exceeds 135kb in size
(or so sez mvps). I don't know what real benefit an XP system gets by
running that service anyways. Just another service that can get hacked
by malware if you ask me.

[Dustin]

Virus Guy <Virus@Guy.com> wrote in news:4FFE57B8.32D3487E@Guy.com:

> On my win-98 system, my hosts file is about 630 kb in size, and every
> application (every browser instance) seems to get it's own copy of
> the hosts file cached in memory.

Do you run win98 because you can't afford to run newer hardware? Or, do
you really think it somehow offers you more security online than an NT or
linux based OS would?

> I think it's a lot of bull**** saying that the hosts file slows down
> your DNS lookups. I do know that on XP systems that its a good idea
> to disable the DNS Server Service if your hosts file exceeds 135kb in
> size (or so sez mvps). I don't know what real benefit an XP system
> gets by running that service anyways. Just another service that can
> get hacked by malware if you ask me.

Jeeze you're an idiot.




--
The Lone Ranger and Tonto follow some bandits into the desert but lose
them. On the way back they're surrounded by 1500 Apaches. Lone
Ranger:Looks like we've got a fight on our hands, Tonto. Tonto: What do
you mean "we", white man?

[Virus Guy]

Dustin wrote:

> Do you run win98 because you can't afford to run newer hardware?

I build every system I own.

I'm running win-98 right now on a Asrock motherboard with 2gb ram, 3.6
ghz Core2 CPU, 1.5 tb SATA hard drive, and Nvidia 6200 256mb AGP video
card.

> Or, do you really think it somehow offers you more security online
> than an NT or linux based OS would?

**** the "security".

It's the LACK OF VULNERABILITY that is the core concept here.

Too many people like you have "security" on the brain. Ever since 9/11
I suppose.

The answer to having a weak front-door is NOT to hire a security guard.
The answer is to not have the ****ing door to being with.

NT-based OS's have too many ****ing doors.