JorgeA Posted June 12, 2010 Author Share Posted June 12, 2010 Blocking Ad-Servers and click-trackers with a hosts file does more than just make the browsing experience more enjoyable. Increasingly it also functions to protect PC's from unnecessary exposure to potentially malicious code.Quite true. And the best independent HOSTS file for this use is findable here.dencorso,Would this be used in addition to, or instead of, the two resident functions in Spybot (Immunization & TeaTimer)?In other words, since I no longer do manual scans with Spybot (and you know why ), I'm looking for a way to replicate those two functions that doesn't involve using that resource hog.--JorgeA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 I think, JorgeA, that it would replace the HOSTS file created by SSD during Immunization.Right now I'm not quite sure whether Immunization only creates a HOSTS file or if it does more things in addition to it. However, I, myself, do not swap HOSTS files. I make a backup of my current one (which I know is working well), then merge the new URLs to the old file, a time-consuming task I perform using Beyond Compare, so I don't do it as often as I'd like to. Then, I substitute the new one for the old one, keeping my eyes wide-open to hunt down any URL that may prevent my accessing places I trust (it's rare, but has happened in the past). As always, YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JorgeA Posted June 12, 2010 Author Share Posted June 12, 2010 dencorso,It does sound like an interesting (if labor-intensive) alternative. I'll look into it further.Muito obrigado!--JorgeA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mijzelf Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 @dencorso: Doesn't using such a giant hosts file give a serious performance hit in name resolving actions? I don't think the name resolving system on W9x is designed to cope with such a database. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightning slinger Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 @Mijzelf. I have never encountered any problems with a large hosts file on 98SE. I have at present 137269 entries using Hostsman v.3.2.73 with MVPS, hphosts(all three files) and Peter Lowe's AdServers all enabled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wsxedcrfv Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 @dencorso: Doesn't using such a giant hosts file give a serious performance hit in name resolving actions? I don't think the name resolving system on W9x is designed to cope with such a database. It's my experience that win-98 shows no performance loss when using large hosts files. And unless my recollection is hazy, I think I read somewhere that it might be that XP that has a problem with large hosts files. As for Spybot, it's best to download the hosts file of your choice (ie MVPS, etc) first before you run spybot. Spybot adds entries to your existing hosts file during it's inoculation process.I have found on occasion that I have to temporarily deactivate my hosts file to make particular web sites work correctly. To deactivate your hosts file, simply rename it, and then open a new instance of your browser. Any browser window that's already open when you rename your hosts file will behave as if your hosts file is still there. I find that I can't properly post to kijiji unless I deactivate my hosts file. Don't know which entries are responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triger49 Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 Yo Dencorso;You are a gentleman and a scholar. I had been tinkeringwith Hosts file for a couple weeks with limited success.That download you listed did everything I was attemptingand a whole lot more including be able to use IE6 again here on MSFN. No more page obliterating, dancing crap on Yahoo!Also, a quote from the included readme file ..."[important Notice - 2K/XP/Vista/Win7 Users]In most cases a large HOSTS file (over 135 kb) tends to slow down the machine. This only occursin 2K/XP/Vista. Windows 98 and Windows ME are not affected"ThanksJake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JorgeA Posted June 15, 2010 Author Share Posted June 15, 2010 No more page obliterating, dancing crap on Yahoo!triger49,I hear you about Yahoo! All that animation was distracting, and it took forever to finish loading on my Win98. That's why I switched search engines to Google a few years ago. Much cleaner look and faster page loading.Then I found out that Google doesn't exactly have a stellar record when it comes to privacy, so now I'm using Ixquick for my Web searches.--JorgeA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triger49 Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 No more page obliterating, dancing crap on Yahoo!triger49,I hear you about Yahoo! --JorgeAActually, there is a method to my madness...so to speak...[Rant]My wife's penchant for hording recipes may possibly bewithout rival. I mean we're talking no dust on the bookshelves because dust could not find the shelves. Of coursethis spilled over to Internet recipe sites and daily recipeemails. Saving grace arrived in the form of Yahoo's unlimitedemail accounts. Hence the regular visits to Yahoo.While Google's reputation over privacy is a gray area, Isometimes find myself thinking it would be cool to letGoogle index this apartment...maybe I would find some stuffthat's been missing for years .. [/Rant]Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JorgeA Posted June 15, 2010 Author Share Posted June 15, 2010 Actually, there is a method to my madness...so to speak...[Rant]My wife's penchant for hording recipes may possibly bewithout rival. I mean we're talking no dust on the bookshelves because dust could not find the shelves. Of coursethis spilled over to Internet recipe sites and daily recipeemails. Saving grace arrived in the form of Yahoo's unlimitedemail accounts. Hence the regular visits to Yahoo.While Google's reputation over privacy is a gray area, Isometimes find myself thinking it would be cool to letGoogle index this apartment...maybe I would find some stuffthat's been missing for years .. [/Rant]JakeJake,That's terrible... and funny!!! --JorgeA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the xt guy Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 It's just as possible to use a large hosts file with 2K/XP as it is with 9x/Me, with no slowdown. My 2K box has a hosts file of about 4.5 megs, the identical file on 98 is about 3.7 megs. (Win2K uses 127.0.0.1, and 98 uses 0 or 0.0.0.0)I'm using MDgx 's hosts file merged with an old hosts file I've been using for 10+ years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triger49 Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 It's just as possible to use a large hosts file with 2K/XP as it is with 9x/Me, with no slowdown. My 2K box has a hosts file of about 4.5 megs, the identical file on 98 is about 3.7 megs. (Win2K uses 127.0.0.1, and 98 uses 0 or 0.0.0.0)I'm using MDgx 's hosts file merged with an old hosts file I've been using for 10+ years.Hi;Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think127.0.0.1 has been the standard loop back address eversince the days of Dos.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightning slinger Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Just about every answer to every question you could ask about hosts files including the pro and cons of using 0.0.0.0 and 127.0.0.1 on all OS's is discussed MDGx at http://www.mdgx.com/hosts.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Just about every answer to every question you could ask about hosts files including the pro and cons of using 0.0.0.0 and 127.0.0.1 on all OS's is discussed MDGx at http://www.mdgx.com/hosts.phpI was about to post just this, when I read your post! Way to go!I must add, however, that I don't actually use MDGx's HOSTS files myself, because I find them way too much restrictive. I prefer the one I linked to some posts above, as the basis of my HOSTS file, and have been adding to it more addresses slowly. But for the in-depth explanation, MDGx's page is the best resource on the web, for sure.@wsxedcrfv: one sure way of determining which cookies' URL's are needed for a specific site is to disable the HOSTS file, then use NirSoft's IECookesView to destroy all cookies, then access the desired site and do whatever you want to do there, and then return to IECookesView and jot down what was added. Then comment out those url's in the hosts file, enable it back again, test, and finally uncomment each url alone, to find out which are really needed. With patience you can determine precisely which urls are needed for that site and decide whether to leave them commented-out or not. I'm not sure whether IECookesView works with 9x/ME, because I've been doing this in XP, so this procedure needs to be tested under 9x/ME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rloew Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Just about every answer to every question you could ask about hosts files including the pro and cons of using 0.0.0.0 and 127.0.0.1 on all OS's is discussed MDGx at http://www.mdgx.com/hosts.phpI was about to post just this, when I read your post! Way to go!I must add, however, that I don't actually use MDGx's HOSTS files myself, because I find them way too much restrictive. I prefer the one I linked to some posts above, as the basis of my HOSTS file, and have been adding to it more addresses slowly. But for the in-depth explanation, MDGx's page is the best resource on the web, for sure.@wsxedcrfv: one sure way of determining which cookies' URL's are needed for a specific site is to disable the HOSTS file, then use NirSoft's IECookesView to destroy all cookies, then access the desired site and do whatever you want to do there, and then return to IECookesView and jot down what was added. Then comment out those url's in the hosts file, enable it back again, test, and finally uncomment each url alone, to find out which are really needed. With patience you can determine precisely which urls are needed for that site and decide whether to leave them commented-out or not. I'm not sure whether IECookesView works with 9x/ME, because I've been doing this in XP, so this procedure needs to be tested under 9x/ME.Just checking the Cookies generated by a site may not be sufficient to determine what Sites have to be unblocked. Necessary pages may not leave any Cookies.I use a DNS logger to track activity and to adjust my Hosts File. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now