many anti spyware products report this about the HOSTS file.
They just don't like it being modified.


On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:25:39 -0500, mishelle10878@nohayoo.com wrote:

>mishelle10878@nohayoo.com wrote in
>news:GdidncQ6oYscsqnYnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@giganews.co m:
>
>> Regarding the HOSTS “possible website hijacks”:
>>
>> All 8 sites have 127.0.0.1 before the entry in the Spyware Doctor log.
>> I was under the assumption that this BLOCKS any hijack and ensures
>> that the browser is redirected to a blank home page. If so, why is
>> “Spyware Doctor” picking this up?
>>
>> For example, one entry is
>>
>> (1468) 127.0.0.1 vbs.t35.com - Indicates that a known good site
>> may be hijacked.
>>
>> If this is all Spyware Doctor picks up, I don’t think it’s worth it.
>> It may be a good program to shield future malware, but between all the
>> free (non-rogue) anti-spyware programs and the very good free AV
>> programs with their multi-shield capability, it seems like enough.
>>
>> My HOSTS file and IE-Spyad may be causing my browser to hang with 130
>> mg of mem usage in resident memory, but it seems to be blocking most
>> of the junk out there.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>In answer to my own question, I just found the following:
>
>http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hostsfaq.htm#Doctor
>
>
>Why does Spyware Doctor report "Possible Website Hijack" in the HOSTS
>file?
>
>This is a false detection and can be Ignored ... you can place these
>items in the "Ignore List" or if it becomes a problem - turn off hosts
>protection (on Network Guard screen). PCTools has been notified but has
>not corrected this problem.
>