Talk:hosts

From Pin Eight
Jump to: navigation, search

APK, please read[edit]

My reversion of your edits had nothing whatsoever to do with their content – there was no censorship intended. I had no intention whatsoever to endorse the views of other Anonymous Cowards and impostors over yours.

The problem with your first round of edits was that you did not comply with common conventions regarding formatting and etiquette.

  • APK EDIT: For Pete's sake, please - who the hell cares? This new look you've applied looks terrible man - all "lumped together" & nigh impossible to separate who is saying what!

You improved your formatting the second time around, but I still see problems with civility. Please keep that in mind if you wish to discuss further. (Generally, we apply Wikipedia guidelines here where it makes sense to do so.)

  • APK EDIT: WTF? You've got fools here ADMITTING TO IMPERSONATING ME ON /. BELOW & YOU'RE TELLING ME TO BE CIVIL? Come on tepples... apk

None of the unregistered IP users on this talk page are me (Eighty5cacao) or the site administrator (Tepples), and none have any known conflict of interest with either of us.

Thank you for your attention. --Eighty5cacao (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  • APK EDIT: Great, since there IS no validly technically disproving my counter-points vs. their bs below. When any of you can validly technically disprove my points on hosts superiority over addons (in this case, AlmostALLAdsBlocked) in post 51107411, THEN I'll be concerned with it - until then? I'm totally "in the clear" & justified as to what I write. Until then? I am IN THE RIGHT & right as rain/right as it gets - & IF I'm "wrong"? I don't want to be "right"... as I am doing right by anyone using my program to create the best hosts file there is, bar-none, for more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity online - period. --APK
I think what Eighty5cacao is referring to is that on a wiki talk page, it's common to place your replies after someone else's comment, indent it, and sign it. Knowing who is posting what helps readers follow pronoun use. Once I get a chance, I plan to restore your old comments and format them accordingly, as you see above. --Tepples (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • APK EDIT: Don't mess with it like you have man - you've made separation of who said what & where a mess (all "clotted together")... apk

Purpose of this page[edit]

On Slashdot, there is a frequent anonymous poster going by "APK" who makes off-topic posts containing multi-page guides to computer security through hosts files. There is another who claims to refute all of APK's posts.

So to help shift the clutter from Slashdot, I called for proposals for a subspace within this wiki about the pros and cons of improving security by blocking specific hostnames from resolving. It is G8-exempt for now. --Tepples (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, this other anonymous poster has recently declared all out war against APK, and in an appalling display of arrogance they're using Slashdot forums for their battleground whether that forum has anything to do with any of this or not. (unsigned post by 68.146.22.71)
  • APK EDIT: That fool deleted out my posts here - fine, since it shows that's "the best he's got" like abused downmods @ slashdot - neither of which is effective vs. me & valid technical points I put out here OR on /. ... apk
Tepples, did you accidentally get logged out here? If not, how should we advise the IP of proper wikiquette? --Eighty5cacao (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't me. --Tepples (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • APK EDIT: I don't make my posts on hosts "off topic" - 99.999% of the time I post them ONLY to inform users of blatantly inferior things like browser addons (CPU/RAM/Other forms of I-O bloating redundant crippled by default and sold-out to advertisers addons, talk about a fox guarding your henhouse) --apk
The "sold-out to advertisers" complaint appears to refer to the "acceptable ads" list in Adblock Plus, which (as many people overlook) can be disabled by the user. The list is not made available by default in uBlock Origin. --Eighty5cacao (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • APK EDIT: Advertisers KNOW that most folks won't disable the default, & the DEFAULT IS NOT BLOCKING ALL ADS!

PROOF-> http : // lauren.vortex.com/archive/001125.html (for some reason I cannot enter another URL, so replace the spaces between the http, :, & // yourself)

QUOTE: "majority of users are never going to change the ad blocker settings"

AND THE DEFAULT OF Adblock is to NOT block all ads (specifically Google, Microsoft, & Amazon who paid them not to (afaik those are the ones who did, feel free to correct me)

A few Thoughts on the Hosts file[edit]

I admit to telling a friend about the hosts file some years ago, when he was asking about a way to prevent advertisement spam from showing up when browsing. For completeness' sake, this was before the advent of AdBlock Plus back when dialup was king. Since he only had one computer he used the internet on, and was using dialup at the time, as well as having never been formally trained in network administration, I felt introducing him to the Hosts file was convenient, and effective for his specific instance. He wasn't trying to block access for a whole local LAN trying to talk to the outside world, and a hosed up Hosts file is reasonably painless to fix. (As opposed to a hosed up static routing table, or a bunch of hosed DNS entries served by a local DNS server, which are 'less' trivial to fix.)

Given that he has since switched to a cable modem, and has several internet connected PCs on a home network now, I am contemplating giving him some instruction on how to administer routing tables and DNS servers via ssh, so he can tweak his local router's behavior instead.

I have long since introduced him to ABP, and he loves it, but has computer paranoia concerning advert scripts, and using noscript carelessly simply breaks more pages than it sanitizes. For him, it's just easier to prevent a request from resolving, and preventing outbound communication, and he is content with the deleterious consequences.

Some of the Pros of using a local hosts file:

  • Easily edited in case of a screwup
  • Mangles resolution for only that specific PC
  • Allows intranet resolutions for static addresses without running a local DNS
  • Trumps whatever is in the DNS server's resolution entry for a specific name
  • Easy for untrained users to make use of

Some of the Cons associated with a local hosts file:

  • Is a poor fit when trying to manage multiple systems due to having to maintain many copies - APK response - untrue - a central network admin with global rights can easily script migrate hosts to ANY PC endpoint.
  • Its ease of maintenance allows malware to blackhole useful/desirable external locations programmatically (win32 platform especially vulnerable. Unix/Linux/BSD flavors have better FS security by default.) - untrue - Windows ACL protects hosts (WFP/SFP) & my program goes beyond that also.
  • Large hosts files slow down name resolution of the local stack, slowing network performace - UNTRUE - hosts files are cached into memory (even by the local kernelmode diskcache) speeding up performance by blocking ads & scripts + your favorite websites placed @ the TOP of hosts (which my program does) resolve faster vs. remote DNS (& w/ less power consumption + moving parts complexity vs. local DNS, less power consumption too). Your favorite sites @ top of hosts are where you spend MOST TIME online (this avoids dns faults like redirect poisoning, dns down, & dns requestlog tracking too).

So, when is a Hosts file modification reasonable in my opinion?

  1. only one system needs to be impacted (say, you are offline testing a webpage you are building in a sandbox, or this is a stand alone kiosk with a separate fileserver physically inside the cabinet.)
  2. the modification is small
  3. the user is NOT a trained admin, but has a specific need to block a resolution request and
  4. the forced resolution table is temporary, and/or meant to not impact other users on the network

Any other scenario is probably better served by having a properly configured local DNS, and maybe a custom static routing table on the default gateway, if you are super paranoid. For a commercial env, such as an enterprise, using a local DNS for the local intranet is a no-brainer, and preventing access to outside hosts is more flexibly handled with a quality firewall. (unsigned post by 138.210.219.83) - APK response - a local DNS server needs more moving parts complexity, power consumption, & has faults (like redirect poisoning or being down).

The above is correct. Also, on most systems the hosts file will be indexed in memory, unless this is disabled. For a multi-GB hosts file, that's a rock set agin a hard place. Also, on Windows, the only way to disable the hosts file being cached is to disable DNS caching entirely. You can manually cache often-used entries at the top of your hosts file, but any URI requested that is not in that list will result in the entire hosts file being read and *then* a DNS query. This is unlikely to be a highly performing operation.
DNS-level blocks will prevent a multitude of issues, but for blocking web advertisements specifically, there is no better solution than Adblock. It offers fine-grained control over what it blocks, based on any part of the URI and/or regex filtering. It also operates at the "content policy" stage, that is, when the browser is deciding how to handle the requested URI, before it actually sends the request. 50.137.30.129 19:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Why must it be a linear search? An OS designed to work with a hosts file over 10 MB will sort the hosts file when loading it and then use an O(log n) binary search. No, I don't know whether any popular PC OS does this. --Tepples (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The hosts file will not be sorted on disk. The OS will not rewrite the hosts file for you. If the file is loaded into memory, it is probably sorted. If not, welcome to linear search. 50.137.30.129 01:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • APK EDIT: Using my APK Hosts File Engine hosts IS sorted on disk and in memory... apk
BSD, Linux, and Windows (with DNS Cache disabled) work the same way: every time you perform a name lookup, they open the hosts file, parse it line-by-line looking for a match, then close it. If there was no match, it then does a DNS lookup. This isn't top-secret information -- you can check the *BSD or GNU libc code to verify it. (unsigned post by 193.234.198.236)
  • APK EDIT: THE LOOKUP IS CACHED IN RAM & DRIVEN BY 2 KERNELMODE SUBSYSTEMS THAT WAY (IP STACK & DISKCACHE) - fast as it gets operating in kernelmode vs. slower usermode AND when users put their FAVORITE SITES INTO THE TOP OF HOSTS (where they spend 95++% or better of their time online)? YOU CAN'T GET ANY FASTER - I place 24 of them @ the TOP of my custom hosts file - this # is immediately searched & exceeds indexed lookups up to 3++ million indexed records on a SLOWER & MORE COMPLEX + SECURITY ISSUE RIDDLED REMOTE DNS SERVER (Kaminsky redirect poisoning anyone? 99.999% of ISP DNS SERVERS ARE NOT PATCHED VS. IT mind you, & what about rogue DNS servers malwares use? What about abused OPEN DNS servers?? What about routers & OS getting their DNS settings bushwhacked by malware??? The list goes on!) --apk
Let's try this again with slightly more conventional formatting: --Tepples (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • APK EDIT: TELL US ANOTHER ONE! WHEN YOU CAN VALIDLY TECHNICALLY DISPROVE THIS LIST OF FACTS BACKED BY REPUTABLE SOURCES & THEIR ANALYSIS (post 51107411 where hosts are shown to DO FAR MORE for FAR LESS no less vs. "AlmostALLAdsBlocked" sold-out & crippled by default to advertisers)? THEN YOU HAVE MADE A VALID POINT & TOLD THE TRUTH and you have not. DNS level blocking introduces a PLETHORA of issues in security, resource abuse, & more (see just above). --apk
  • APK EDIT: Can't deploy to multiple systems? Bull: Hosts are EASY to manage via a central point by administrators of LANs migrating hosts files to individual endpoints by scripts they can schedule periodically centrally OR in login scripts for users even.
  • APK EDIT: Vulnerable to DoS by malware? WRONG: Not while APK Hosts File Engine runs resident. NOTHING in user mode can pierce it's protection above and beyond WFP/SFP also protecting hosts.
  • APK EDIT: ABP gives you "enough control"? OK, validly technically prove my points wrong in post 51107411 regarding all things hosts do that adblock either can't or can't as efficiently as hosts (which adblock will never be considering it's crippled by default & sold out to advertisers AND the fact its slower usermode operation that layers over already slower usermode apps in webbrowsers also increasing their memory, cpu, & messagepassing by MASSIVE amounts. Hosts don't. They're part of the kernelmode faster (more cpu serviced) device driver ring 0/rpl 0 level of operations. 108.12.49.63 12 December 2015
"AlmostALLAdsBlocked" is INFERIOR & 'SOULED-OUT' VS. HOSTS (on tons of levels). What I list in post 51107411 is backed by data from reputable sources. I welcome ANYONE to validly technically disprove it (good luck, you'll need it - more like a MIRACLE!)
  • APK EDIT: ISSUES IN DNS HOSTS EASILY OVERCOME. As anyone can see in post 42729809, The /. troll losers attempted to abuse moderation on that post too (even though it lists facts that are solid from reputable sources).
  • APK EDIT: It is easy to migrate a hosts file across a LAN from a central point by a network administrator (either by chronjob/taskscheduler tasks OR logon scripts)
  • APK EDIT: Nothing in usermode can blow past APK Hosts File Engine protecting hosts (above & beyond Windows' own WFP/SFP mind you) while it runs resident AND on update, a brand new hosts file is created by the program, overwriting ANY old entries & the old file in its entirety.
  • APK EDIT: Slow name resolution is ONLY TRUE if you can't follow directions - APK Hosts File Engine instructs the user to shutdown & disable the local dnscache usermode slower client which has a problem with larger hosts files (faulty design, fixed sized datastructure/buffer - limited vs. resizeable/redimmable as it should have been)
  • APK EDIT: LOCAL DNS has MASSIVE security issues & is wasteful for a home network (especially if there's only a single machine there) in terms of both electrical power used (especially if you only have 1 system & moreso if you setup the DNS as a separate system) + complexity in moving parts for exploit or breakdown. Kaminsky redirect poisoning anyone? Routers being bushwhacked in DNS settings anyone?? Open DNS being abused by malware anyone??? Rogue DNS servers anyone???? --apk

Like them because they're simple and direct; unless it's a monster-big file it's plenty fast on modern hardware. Don't like them because figuring out what to comment out to restore desired function to a given site is for a noob like me at best tedious. I find something such as AdBlock or AdBlockPlus usually gives me enough control without me needing to really know what I'm doing. (unsigned post by 70.92.185.140)

  • APK EDIT: Try editing almostalladsblocked regex rules (especially non-programmers) vs. editing hosts easily understood 2 column line entries (far less work) and you're more than welcome to validly technically disprove my points on hosts superiority to adblock on every front noted in post 51107411 --apk

A few Thoughts on APK[edit]

I've noticed that there's a whole lot of talk about the hosts file, but not much about APK, or APK's hosts file.

Keep in mind, the reason for the extended spam battle on slashdot is not because people debate the value of one modifying their own hosts file to suit their network-blocking needs. It is instead focused entirely on the infamous APK's hosts file specifically.

This discussion would be more informative if it focused on APK's hosts file, as it is claimed that only APK has the divinely inspired knowledge to blacklist all the right hosts, with no false positives and no false negatives. I see people debating the virtues of using a hosts file to improve computer security, but they miss the entire point. Of course you can't craft a hosts file that is effective for this purpose; you are not APK.

  • APK EDIT: WTF is that last comment about? ANYONE can create a custom hosts file in any number of ways - I merely provide a good solid way to do so from a great program that works & that populates itself with blocking data vs. ads/trackers/spam-phish/botnets/maliciously scripted sites etc.!

Of particular interest is APK himself. Why is his hosts file the one true hosts file to use for these purposes? What is it about APK that allows him to craft a hosts file that no one else could? By what chance did he find himself in such a privileged state, and is there any way that we can hope to become more like him? Will there ever be a day when the common computer user will be able to fire up their own plaintext editor and perform hosts file wizardry the likes of which have only been seen by APK himself?

  • APK EDIT (again replacing what was deleted OUT by SOMEONE (a little asshole obviously)): WHEN & WHERE DID I EVER SAY MY PROGRAM'S THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE A HOSTS FILE, hmmm? I NEVER ONCE HAVE - only that my program creates the very best possible one from 10 reputable security sites as its data sources.

The fact that this discussion has digressed to encompass such off-topic issues as dynamic hostname resolution and ad blocking leaves me feeling sad. I thought this was supposed to be a place where great philosophers would congregate to share their musings on the fabled APK and his hosts file. I fear that I am leaving disappointed. (unsigned post by 108.58.122.186)

From the article: "APK [...] wrote a tool to manage hosts files in Windows." Then it links to a Slashdot comment by APK listing the "14++ reputable & reliable sources" that his tool checks by default. I too am slightly disappointed that I haven't been able to find more info about the methodology used by APK to choose these blocking lists over others, nor about the methodologies used by the authors of these lists. If you know of a better set of blocking lists, go ahead. --Tepples (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • APK EDIT: They're sites in the security community you can use to populate your hosts file vs. threats or slowdowns online. You can choose to use ALL of them OR only some as you see fit (the program I wrote is flexible that way). --apk
Sorry if I don't make a new account for a 1-2 time posting. I do get grumpy with the APK/Clone-APK thing because it is indeed SO DAMNED LONG! It's a small part of why I am finally reading at 0 instead of -1 these days because I don't care to scroll through TWELVE SCREENS of stuff! 24.193.34.113 23:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • APK EDIT: I merely list or cite facts - the more the merrier imo & I leave no stones unturned, that's all (I believe in supplying complete information & as anyone who frequents /. can see? NOBODY EVER VALIDLY TECHNICALLY PROVES MY POINTS ON HOSTS WRONG - period)... I suppose that if you're a troll, not being able to find a "hole" in what I write is "frustrating" (too bad for you) - you can always resort to your LAST RESORT saying I am 'spamming' (weak & lame) - well, then you'd better TELL THAT ONE TO ALL "ALMOST ALL ADS BLOCKED FANS" & its variants like UBlock, Ghostery, & PrivacyBadger too (IF you're fair that is & you are NOT!).
APK now has a 2 million (!) line hosts file. Are there 2 million active malware and ad sites? And what kind of filth is he visiting where it's even a problem? If you're that concerned about ads and malware, white list instead of blacklist. I.E. - turn off DNS and add your top 100 sites to your hosts file. (APK already includes his favorite sites at the top of his hosts file since a 2 million line hosts file kills name resolution performance). -- 96.44.189.98 23:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • APK EDIT: Correction - again, 4++ million lines here and growing, and FAR FROM SLOWING DOWN (if you can follow directions, tepples, myself, & others note to turn off the local usermode slower clientside dnscache that's faulty with larger hosts files in Windows - & there are methods for increasing hosts read priority in the registry I've posted before also to further speed it up above the normal default). --apk
  • APK EDIT: When I can't touch something bad it can't hurt me, and vice versa - HOSTS DO that FOR YOU AND THEY SPEED YOU UP 2 WAYS (BEYOND MERE ADBLOCKING WHICH IS A GREAT SPEED & SECURITY GAIN, BUT ALSO VIA HARDCODED FAVORITES @ THE TOP OF HOSTS WHICH IS WHERE YOU SPEND 95++% OF YOUR TIME ONLINE ARE CACHED IN RAM & INSTANTLY RESOLVED FASTER THAN REMOTE DNS IS BY FAR, MORE EFFICIENTLY LOCALLY!) And BTW: it's up to 4++ million lines currently. --apk
If a hosts file with 2 million entries kills performance on a modern PC, then there's a problem with how the operating system's hostname revolver searches the hosts file. (I'll write some notes on implementation in the article.) And with a whitelist, how would any web search engine be useful to you? As soon as you find a search result on a hostname that you've never seen before, you'd have to wait for your administrator to get home and seek your administrator's permission to add a particular hostname to the whitelist. --Tepples (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • APK EDIT: Yes, hosts will "be sorted on disk" if run thru APK Hosts File Engine. I have a hosts file with 4++ MILLION entries & I've posted Super User's findings on hosts actually being FASTER than bloated redundant wasteful messagepassing & cpu, ram, + other forms of I/O abusing bloating usermode slower browser addons on this page. APK 108.12.49.63 12 December 2015

So I finally got a response out of him (or his impostor), and it's a wall of text. --Tepples (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

At the moment I'm probably the most active APK impostor, and that wasn't me or anyone I know. Based on my experience, I would estimate at least an 80% chance that that's the real APK. Cheers. 199.48.147.39 15:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
No way. APK always uses lots and lots (and lots) of blank lines. (unsigned post by 99.103.126.38)
  • APK EDIT: THE FACT YOU ADMIT IMPERSONATING ME INDICATES YOU ARE A LOSER and WEASEL OF THE HIGHEST ORDER "ne'er-do-well"... apk
Holy crap. Just because you like or dislike hosts files doesn't mean you have to make fun of APK. --Tepples (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • APK EDIT: It's some little mentally deranged psycho doing it, no questions asked... apk
  • APK EDIT: There's a lot of talk about APK Hosts File Engine over on Slashdot, where I promote the program I wrote for hosts files. You admit this yourself, 108.58.122.186. Nobody, either here or there, validly technically disproves my points on hosts files. And WHERE DID I EVER SAY "MY WAY IS THE ONLY WAY TO EDIT HOSTS?" I just point out my program does the job better than other methods. apk 108.12.49.63 12 December 2015

To do: Integrate this APK post and something sent to my e-mail. --Tepples (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  • APK EDIT: TO ALL POSTS ABOVE: THE DAY YOU CAN ALL VALIDLY TECHNICALLY COMPLETELY PROVE MY POINTS WRONG IS THE DAY YOU ARE RIGHT - none of you have managed that to date.

jansal's advice[edit]

I don't specifically recall whether we've ever mentioned this on the wiki. I'm aware that their explanation of 0.0.0.0 isn't exactly correct. Just leaving this here as food for thought. --Eighty5cacao (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

APK EDIT: My thoughts on 0 vs. 0.0.0.0 were expressed 1st to then (date of this link) VP of the Microsoft Windows' Client Performance Division who could not validly combat my points & AGREED with me on them in fact

[1]

His name's Richard Russell (real name) & posted @ slashdot (often harassed by trolls as well mind you, check his profile there to verify this IF you wish)agreeing on 0 vs. 0.0.0.0 (removed in the date noted in Windows Patch Tuesday, actually WEAKENING IT) for my points on a leaner/meaner/smaller/faster on initial load hosts file when they removed 0 as a valid blocking address leaving only the larger slower 0.0.0.0 (non-std? Big deal SET A NEW STANDARD THAT's BETTER - win2k sp2 did with it & it's logical + better... even MS upper mgt., CS degreed so he's no "bozo" on this material as I noted).

He told me he'd "get back to me" but never did - told to to go elsewhere in the meantime so, I approached Sinofsky the sinking ship deserter on his "Building Windows 8" blog as well on the same thing, no results & NO FEEDBACK on WHY it was done (for security? No, I doubt it but I asked, nothing in response)

BOTH turned out "Checks in the mail & I won't come in your mouth" type b.s. when they failed to prove me wrong... Sinofsky didn't even acknowledge this in fact at all even though it's RIGHT AS RAIN!

Now they're hosing it for other things in VISTA onwards too. Strangely? It lives on untouched in Win2k/xp/server2003. Explain that? They're dead, they don't care.

Man... Foredecker/Russell probably was TOLD TO by Sinofsky, Ballmer (BENT ON BEING AN ADVERTISING POWER & YES I CAN PRODUCE A QUOTE ON IT FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE TOO, just ask, I will on edit on request) imo, & it ADVERSELY AFFECTS INIT. LOAD of HOSTS from disk to RAM on PERFORMANCE of all things (HIS DIVISION NO LESS) attempting to "pass the buck" which I went higher up the food chain as I noted to their then CEO Sinofsky who ran after the debacle that was Win Vista - 8 & now 10 trying to be forced down our throats for telemetry tracking...

A shame, a beautiful thing, largest programming artifact in existence, reduced to an ADVERTISTING + TRACKING TOOL (trying to be wannabe Google). Hosts get in the way of that, blocking ads, of course... no small wonder, they want to be Google! Ballmer's stated it (need a quote? Ask!)

kozz's advice[edit]

I've done my best to ignore the APK posts. That being said, I recall that at least in Windows XP, hosts files could become a problem. Anyone who ever installed Spybot Search & Destroy on an XP machine can understand. In an attempt to blacklist the malware-laden domains, Spybot adds... I don't know, probably thousands of lines to the hosts file. The result is that the machine is so damned slow (especially on startup) that I blew it away, never to recommend it to anyone again. (Usually only installed it on PCs I had to support, you know, like stepmom)

  • APK EDIT: You're not "ignoring me" - TRUTH IS, you & yours can't validly technically disprove my points on hosts files' superiority to redundant, inefficient, sold out to advertisers & crippled by default browser addons like AlmostALLAdsBlocked (or Ghostery for example) -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8457871&cid=51107411 --apk

I realize this is more of an indictment of Spybot, but the end is the same: hosts files as blacklists is generally not a good idea. (unsigned post by 50.123.253.195)

For the record: jansal's advice above includes the use of a hosts file based on that of Spybot. And if just a couple thousand are enough to slow Windows XP down, it's not an indictment of Spybot as much as it is an indictment of Windows XP's resolver. I explained in the article how to process even a super-sized APK hosts file efficiently. --Tepples (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • APK EDIT: Why is it a "bad idea" when HOSTS WORK FAR BETTER & DO MORE FOR LESS + MORE EFFICIENTLY THAN "AlmostALLAdsBlocked" then? Validly disprove my points on that note here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8457871&cid=51107411 since until you do? YOU HAVE NO VALID POINT & CANNOT BACKUP YOUR BS!
  • APK EDIT: You're not ignoring my posts at Slashdot: You just can't validly technically prove ME wrong. Funny the folks at Super User found using hosts is faster than browser add-ons: Which leads to faster browsing, an ad blocker or an edited hosts file? I use a hosts file with well over four million entries and go faster. Perhaps you never heard of disabling the slower usermode faulty with larger hosts files DNS cache in Windows obviously. It has ISSUES WITH LARGER HOSTS FILES & IS IN SLOWER USERMODE (vs. hosts in kernelmode). Doing that not only speeds you up but saves cpu cycles, ram, and other I/O wasted on a faulty service. 108.12.49.63 12 December 2015

Memory usage of Adblock Plus[edit]

Sorry I'm a little late to the game (I hadn't gotten around to posting this because of other things on my mind):

There's been a lot of talk lately about the memory usage of Adblock Plus (and similar extensions for other browsers) and the implementation changes that would need to be made to improve that, especially with regard to the element-hiding feature. See also the Adblock Plus team's reply, where APK verifiably attempted to comment and had his post deleted as off-topic. --Eighty5cacao (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  • APK EDIT: There's no disputing documented proof from reputable sources' tests that "AlmostALLAdsBlocked" and other browser extensions are redundant, bloated, and inefficient in RAM, CPU, and other forms of I/O abusing (messagepassing overheads). This page on ghacks.net shows how hosts use 3-11mb w/ my program initially. Even Firefox 41 AdBlock eats 65++mb (ghacks.net)
  • APK EDIT: It's a fact AdBlock uses tons of memory and CPU and that it uses far more than hosts do as well as operating in a far less CPU-serviced level of privilege (user mode) vs. hosts also. Using redundant browser add-ons is illogical. They layer over already slower user-mode browsers increasing message passing overheads and resource use bloat too. Hosts do not and are a native part of any BSD-derived normal IP stack.
  • APK EDIT: IF my ware & posts are "so bad", then WHY ON EARTH did AlmostALLAdsBlocked people DELETE MY POSTS? They tried hiding facts I put out like these is why, lol... weak! apk 108.12.52.87 12 December 2015
I'm not trying to hide anything. That's why I made this page in the first place. We deleted your posts because of formatting issues. I'm restoring them today now that I have time to reformat them to what MediaWiki talk page users expect. --Tepples (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • APK EDIT: Please don't "clot them together" like you have been - it makes reading thru this a pain man (seriously)... apk

Discussions I need to revisit[edit]

(No prompt reply needed or expected.)

Has APK made any substantial effort to ensure that blocking of CDN IPs does not break major functionality on legitimate sites?

Also, I still need to read the post in which it is claimed that "APK Hosts File Engine does things that ad blocker browser extensions can't do." This makes sense in the limited sense of strictly blocking malicious sites, especially by IP (with firewall rules such as those added by APK Hosts File Engine). However, my intuition would suggest that the more general case is the opposite; a hosts file cannot apply URL-specific filters or cosmetic (DOM element-hiding) filters without a local Web proxy and a locally-generated root certificate for TLS MITMs. See mention of the issue in the documentation for uBlock Origin. --Eighty5cacao (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC) (+ 05:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC))

I just summarized the major "things". DNS blocking applies to all applications, even if they aren't designed for use with web browser extensions. Some native applications fetch advertisements or report excessive telemetry to the publisher; DNS blocking can block that. I seem to remember past news stories about certain native online applications being compromised through the Trident or WebKit browser embedded in the client.
The other advantage that APK likes to trumpet is that the OS's hosts file parser runs in kernel mode, without an allegedly time-consuming context switch in and out. But that's more dubious for two reasons. One is that because major OS developers haven't spent any blooming time on Blooming, the time for a linear search through a multi-megabyte hosts file greatly outweighs context switch time, which APK Hosts File Engine works around by caching commonly used "good" sites' IPs at the top of the hosts file. The other is that a browser extension avoids the context switch into kernel mode in the first place. --Tepples (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for not thinking about non-browser applications, but I still feel that the other objections are decisive. I personally use both a (rather small) hosts file and an in-browser ad blocker. --Eighty5cacao (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • APK EDIT: KERNELMODE IS 1000's of times faster than usermode (& the ip stack has over 45++ yrs. of programmatic refinement in it & is using what you already natively have vs. stupidly & illogically "Bolting on 'MoAr'" in browser addons OR dns servers since hosts is part of the kernelmode faster IP stack) & caching using the local kernelmode diskcaching subsystem as I do it (due to larger hosts file use here) avoids ANY context-switch overheads to usermode (you can't with addons - they ARE in usermode & slower due to that it as well as their tendency to bloat memory, cpu, & i/o badly with more complexity, room for breakdown, OR exploit due to it).
  • APK EDIT: THERE's NOTHING "DUBIOUS" ABOUT THE TRUTH OF KERNELMODE OPERATIONS BEING HIGHER CPU SERVICED (& thus faster): Heck, usermode gui apps are easily 10-20x slower than GUI usermode ones. Multiply that again by a 100 fold for kernelmode speed vs. usermode. Hosts are also cached in RAM (better how I do it using the kernelmode diskcaching subsystem in combination with the IP stack itself in Windows (tcpip.sys, your resolver subsystem) completely avoiding BOTH usermode slowness, redundant illogic in using addons in browsers when hosts is already there operating FIRST (default 1st resolver in kernelmode), AND using a usermode slower faulty with larger hosts files dnscache (dnsapi.dll iirc)). 108.12.49.63 12 December 2015
  • APK EDIT: I ENUMERATE MANY OF DNS SECURITY AND RESOURCES OVERUSE FAULTS (Kaminsky redirect poisonings of which 99.999% of ISP dns ARE NOT PATCHED VS. MIND YOU, AS WELL AS ROGUE DNS SERVERS MALWARE USES (WHICH HAS BEEN HIJACKED IN ROUTERS AND OS SIDE IP STACK SETTINGS (DNSCHANGER IS E.G.)), OPEN DNS SERVERS BEING ABUSED BY MALWARE, DNS BLOCKLISTS AND TRACKING, AND MORE)... apk
  • APK EDIT: When CDN blocking is shown to break sites, THEN WE'LL TALK. UNTIL THEN NOTHING ADDS MORE SECURITY, SPEED, RELIABILITY, & ANONYMITY ONLINE FOR USERS FOR LESS! I don't deal with 'phantasyland' theoreticals but rather reality... try it sometime. Until then & even then? Hosts files provide excellent protection for less and more speed, security, reliability & anonymity - more than ANY OTHER SINGLE SOLUTION DOES & for a lot less resource bloat + electrical power consumption with less complexity using what you already have natively built in (ip stack which hosts are a part of in kernelmode faster operations).
  • APK EDIT: HOSTS WILL ALWAYS BE ABLE TO BLOCK MALICIOUS SITES SERVED UP BY HOST-DOMAIN NAMES FOR SECURITY VS. ONLINE THREATS AND IT DOES SO FOR LESS THAN BROWSER ADDONS IN SLOWER USERMODE BY FAR (DOCUMENTATION OF THAT IS ABOVE FOR ALMOSTALLADSBLOCKED AND NOW HERE FOR UBLOCK TOO FROM REPUTABLE SOURCES) AND HOSTS SECURE vs. DNS tracking or blocklists as well (addons noted here, inferior as hell, do NOT touch that end of things - hosts can):
  • APK EDIT: Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself.
  • APK EDIT: UBlock uses 63++ MB -> www.ghacks.net/2014/06/24/ublock-chrome-resource-friendly-adblocker-http-switchboard-author/
  • APK EDIT: FINAL THOUGHTS HERE: YOU CAN KEEP EDITING OUT MY POSTS THAT PROVE ALL OF YOURS COMPLETELY WRONG - GOOD JOB BOYS - YOU'VE GRADUATED TO THE LEVEL OF ALMOSTALLADSBLOCKED DELETING MY POSTS ON THEIR FORUMS! DO YOU THINK THAT FOOLS ANYONE? IT MAKES YOU ALL LOOK LIKE IMBECILES TRYING TO HIDE THE TRUTH THAT I PUT OUT VS. YOUR BULLSHIT! --apk

Post 51107411[edit]

APK often refers to post 51107411. All he really wants is solid arguments against those points. And frankly, I agree with this. I plan to express the posts in post 51107411 in my own words on a separate talk page for people to offer evidence in favor of or against each point. So let's do it: Talk:Hosts/Post 51107411 --Tepples (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  • APK EDIT: Tepples /. users have had 5++ years to do so & nobody's managed to validly technically disprove those points - period... doesn't THAT tell you anything, as well as some of them EDITING OUT MY REPLIES HERE or ADMITTING TO IMPERSONATING ME ABOVE also? They can't DO it man... it's impossible to disprove valid truth & facts is why & they KNOW it... apk
Yes, there are some miscreants and incompetents on Slashdot. All I'm interested in now are facts and evidence. Those (few?) Slashdot users who are not incompetent can edit in evidence, and I've started by adding some evidence that you've provided. --Tepples (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • APK EDIT: Tepples, yes - SOME are "miscreants" (I call them "ne'er-do-wells", lol) like the morons @ arstechnica who couldn't handle I knocked them on their asses repeatedly (not the bs rumors those scumbags spread about me over a decade now) - you don't see ME "trolling" unless I was trolled first... then, it's merely payback via humiliating them (since they're easy to track by "registered 'luser' names" on /. - personally, I feel keeping an account there is largely foolish - for the reasons of tracking alone), publicly while I do so - IF/WHEN I do it? Believe you me - they had it coming... HOWEVER: I believe it's 1 of 5 types REALLY MOSTLY BEHIND IT (& it makes sense why - I am threatening their "money tree" with a superior method & ware to achieve those ends of more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity online). They are:

1.) Advertisers 2.) malware makers &/or botnet herders 3.) An INFERIOR competitor (e.g. - AdBlock, Ghostery, & RequestPolicy) 4.) webmasters (I held the app back for them in fact, it was done, in 3 parts though in tty mode, as far back as 2003 here but when malvertizing went out of control, out the door she went to 'the masses' for the absolute good, since any idiot knows being destructive = easy, but doing good NEVER is, but it's worth it imo)

  • Doesn't 'take a brain' to realize THAT much - after all: THEY'RE THE ONES WHO GET "HURT" by it - problem is THEY have been hurting others bandwidth/speed, security, & more for DECADES... Funniest part is that technically unjustifiable downmods are "the best they got" vs. documented facts from reputable sources I put out... but they certainly CAN'T get the better of me disproving my points on hosts files' mulitiple nigh ubiquitous value to end users...

APK

P.S.=> In fact? I'd almost WAGER per #3 above in this case, that it's Wladimir Palant (AdBlock creator) who wrote me by email, 1st, saying "hosts are a shitty solution" - well, when I confonted him in email reply to show me that "Almost ALL ADS BLOCKED" can do MORE than custom hosts? He refused to reply, & RAN like a scared rabbit - ESPECIALLY after this article study showed how massively INEFFICIENT in RAM (5gb usage) & HIGH CPU USAGE AdBlock is https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/05/14/adblock-pluss-effect-on-firefoxs-memory-usage/

OR

Sebastian Noack (AdBlock+ 'creator' who merely bit off W. Palant's code) ... apk

Before they expire out of my inbox[edit]

I'll need to incorporate the thoughts set forth in these posts: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] --Tepples (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

  • APK EDIT: #9 has nothing to do with me so you know (unless you have reasons for it here otherwise)
    • Acknowledged. I was just listing all anonymous comments in my Slashdot Message Center at the time, some yours, some others'. --Tepples (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • APK EDIT: Tepples, I'll incorporate MY thoughts now - for my NEW YEARS RESOLUTION (one of them)

It's "adios" to /. - I've left slashdot for a New Year's Resolution. Why? See above & the antics you yourself notice from my detractors.

Besides: /.'s served their purpose for me via their inability to validly technically disprove my points about hosts files multiple values for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity via something you already possess that's natively built-into the IP stack itself.

(That was all I ever wanted as you yourself have stated there but all I get is name calling, threats on my life, email and real mail sent my way that incorporated various forms of threats, my reputation, impersonating me, libeling me, & constantly downmod hiding my posts!)

The downmods even fooled people so others think they are deleted who are not as "/. saavy" about the bogus easily cheated so-called 'moderation threshold' due to forums slides, + sockpuppet driven downmods... & so on! THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT (you demand proofs from me, I always provide them) [11]

Believe me the list goes on & on the advice of law enforcement whom I reported SOME to, as well as /. DICE legal (nothing done on the latter) - this IS where I draw the line. NO thanks, no more to that but thanks (to you, others, & for the idiots being foolish enough to troll me too).

They've made me EXTREMELY UPSET @ times & I've left the place since I refuse to let them "drag me down to their level" & beat me with experience (like idiots are wont to do) - I know you've seen it & commented on it, which I can produce on your request but you note it in 1 of your posts above!

/.'s no longer the slashdot of "the halcyon days of yore" but instead has become the province of trolls that goad you by ac trolling and I literally have 100s of these threats collected over time, most from ac posters, but some from registered 'lusers' which are essentially the same - as most of those are hiding behind fake names + bogus email accounts by the score for sockpuppet creation which imo, is used to further SOMEONE's agenda (advertiser, inferior competitors, webmasters, & lastly + imo leastly? Malware makers who could care less - they just make more, & I know - by the millions since 1997 to present I block out in hosts protecting people gratis...).

All of which anyone is free to inquire here as to proof of my words and as usual which I am certain you yourself will substantiate (I produce to back me from reputable sources, as I do with hosts files).

I am not finding that @ slashdot anymore. Only rampant unjustifiable downmods of my hosts posts (gosh, wonder why? Not. Butthurt trolls are more spiteful than women - they repeatedly took potshots at my points, failed, & now are TAKING THEM @ ME & you note that above... maliciously, hoping I do the same - I am not going that route, they want me to... to make me JUST like them, no way! Of course, I also suspect it's from inferior redundant bloated "so-called 'competitors'" also, or from advertisers (mostly these 2), webmasters losing site views (since hosts does block, say, Google ads & almostALLAdsAblocked doesn't by default) plus possibly malware makers who I honestly think don't give 2 hoots, since they just will make more bad sites and the cat & mouse game goes on & on...)

That all said & aside?

So, I am off to another pasture online to both inform + spread the good word about hosts, & hopefully to find a more challenging lot.

On /. though" Yes, Some made me think there (you have tepples), but it was rare per the above - however, like here?

I validly combatted & disproved their points as is true on /. but the place is overrun with trolls, & honestly I think it's dying as is often said there. It's been sold once, it's happening again. Place is hopeless and USELESS to me now, as I've made my point. They aren't able to prove my points validly wrong defeating my main purpose for using them for my program (along with information for others about it & how it's better than browser addons).

So, it's off "Onwards & UPWARDS" as I've closed more than a few PS posts with on /. circa 2005-present 2016. It's been a FUN ride & hopefully a fruitful one for me with hosts, since ala Matt Damon in "ROUNDERS" (not too diff. of a background than I there only a diff. genre)?

"People like calling it luck (apk edit - luck is the residue of GOOD DESIGN -> [http:// start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74] )

"The World Series of POKER has a million bucks on it - does it have MY NAME ON IT? I dunno... but, I'm gonna find out..."

Since if ALMOSTALLAdsBlocked can do it? Heck, so can I with a lighter, faster, more capable tool in hosts minus illogically stupidly "bolting on 'MoAr'" as idiots do, as LESS IS MORE = GOOD ENGINEERING - especially using what you already natively have that runs in a faster mode of ops with more cpu given it vs slower usemode bloated crap! It's worth a shot.

Hopefully wherever I land (still choosing), I'll find people that are not as I've described above & which have pulled their bs here also proving my point (as well as on /.) which I am certain you know of yourself from BOTH here and /. in regards to my statement here.

All in ALL:

It's been nice meeting you and good luck in your ventures in the future PER THE HAPPY NEW YEAR (this is one of my resolutions, for the best for myself).

Too bad you & I, provided you've seen & considered my points valid (which I think you do) aren't in control of Microsoft who hosed the hosts file trying to be Google (too late guys - should've stuck to your fundamentals & what you do best - Windows, securing it more vs. adding features (the bane of design if done imprudently - errors & bugs occur then, Apple's seeing it too...))

MS in first crippling the hosts file in Win7!

E.G. - I spoke to their then Windows Performance Division VP Foredecker (Richard Russell) who couldn't even combat my points on a leaner/meaner hosts file when they removed 0 as a valid blocking address leaving only the larger slower 0.0.0.0 (non-std? Big deal SET A NEW ONE - win2k sp2 did with it (& it's logical, read the link I post next).

I approached Sinofsky the sinking ship deserter on his "Building Windows 8" blog as well on the same thing, no results & NO FEEDBACK on WHY it was done (for security? No, I doubt it but I asked, nothing in response)

This occurred here -> [http:// slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30384918] & HE AGREED, said he'd "get back to me" but never did - checks in the mail & I won't come in your mouth b.s. when he failed to prove me wrong...

Now they're hosing it for other things in VISTA onwards too.

Strangely?

It lives on untouched in Win2k/xp/server2003. Explain that? They're dead, they don't care.

Man... Foredecker/Russell blew it off even though he agreed with me!

This WAS regarding PERFORMANCE of all things (HIS DIVISION NO LESS) attempting to "pass the buck" which I went higher up the food chain as I noted to their then CEO Sinofsky who ran after the debacle that was Win Vista - 8 & now 10 trying to be forced down our throats for telemetry tracking...

I honestly suspect (for the reasons noted next) that He probably was TOLD TO by Sinofsky & Ballmer (BENT ON BEING AN ADVERTISING POWER & YES I CAN PRODUCE A QUOTE ON IT FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE TOO, just ask, I will on edit on request)!

A shame, a beautiful thing, largest programming artifact in existence, reduced to an ADVERTISTING + TRACKING TOOL (trying to be wannabe Google).

Too bad as I said.

YES - I considered your BLOOM FILTER IDEA, & yes, it's a possible.

So are others I have not disclosed yet, but we don't work there to improve it.

They don't WANT IT IMPROVED was my conclusion. They want to be Google instead.

I can see the end coming if they don't turn it around. I told Richard Russell (Foredecker) Linux would eventually catchup & the FREEBIE model MIGHT win (however, look @ UBUNTU doing the same).

The rats are in control in world society. Anything for a buck including ruining good things and the fools think they can all 'hoodwink' us all with it. NOT for long.

There's a LOT OF GOOD PEOPLE OUT THERE NOTING WHAT I FOUND IN DIFFERENT AREAS & the marketers don't like it, as that is largely who rises to power in companies (I've seen their budgets & expense accounts larger than many companies' payrolls, & money talks (but it is also the root of all evil)).

No, in the end?

Again, nice meeting you & good luck!

You're a decent man tepples.

See - I couldn't figure out, initially, if you were "for" OR "against" hosts files (I stated that in 1 of your links above, hence my final edits now in response here, not there - I am done w the place)!

However - honestly now I think I may see your point: You're a truth/fact seeker (as I forgot I called you in your links above). I am also.

Hey, ME? It's not LUCK - it's skill & the residue of GOOD design (see above)...

So, thus? I won't need it!

Once more - SLASHDOT'S PROVED THAT FOR ME BY THEIR ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP BEING UNABLE TO VALIDLY PROVE ME WRONG ON HOSTS FILES (which I was using them for in fact for pointing out "objections" I had to overcome, in case I missed some myself - instead they're all pushing sold-out to advertisers bs ware that doesn't do as much on MANY fronts vs. hosts.

Even DNS itself (hosts fix its security issues & being lighter but doing the same for less), inferior redundant inefficient browser addons, & more (I don't need to go on as I have repeatedly there only to find my points inviolate & yes invincible vs. naysayers & detractors - good enough for me).

So, adios (unless I see you elsewhere in time online later) & Happy New Year (& many more to you)... thanks!

APK

aloha friend[edit]

Hey comrade. 2+0+1+6 (unsigned post by 178.150.15.226)

APK sympathizes with Nazis[edit]

Wolfenstein 3D and early versions of Concentration Room are one thing, where Nazi-analogues are the villains, but what APK just did is so much worse. After he wished the atrocities of the Holocaust on another person, I can not see myself promoting it anymore. --Tepples (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I can "not see" an impostor either. --Tepples (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)