Best/Favorite Hosts File Provider

[JRCATES]

There are several different Hosts File providers, and several different Hosts file manager type software programs available these days.....but I'm curious which Hosts File provider people think is the best.

[sosaiso]

I used to use Bluetack until it became ridiculous and blocking out everything. I've now changed to MVPS and a combination of the other 4.

[rdsu]

MVPS Hosts, because of its quality.

[marcromero]

I casted no vote, I do not see the need for a host file.

[TNT]

None, because of how limited protection a hosts file can offer (come on, no wildcards... that means "so easy to bypass it's not even funny"). You can arguably block some cookies domains with that, real bad domains already use hundreds of subdomains to bypass that.

[WSFuser]

i use MVPS Hosts. its light (small) and effective.

[ErikAlbert]

I use MVPS also in combination with Hostsman.
http://hostsman.abelhadigital.com/
I've read several times that Bluetack is too aggressive.
Bluetack hosts file was also a problem for MS Windows AntiSpyware and increased its runtime too much. I don't know about MS Windows Defender, but if you use it, check it out first with Bluetack.
Bluetack is more quantity, than quality IMO and a huge Windows Hosts File will make each application that needs it slower. The hosts file is a text-file, not an indexed database, which makes each search slow.

Another good preventive tool is IE-SPYAD for MS Internet Explorer :
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/uiuc/resource.htm

[crofttk]

NONE. The benefits don't merit the costs.

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "NONE. The benefits don't merit the costs." }-

I'm somewhat perplexed as to what you mean by "costs".....could you please explain, croftk? There is no financial cost for the Hosts file choices listed, or for most of the Hosts management software utilities either....this is all freeware. Also, I haven't experienced any noticeable drag on my system or any other odd system behavior....so I'm curious what was meant by the statement above......

[crofttk]

-{ Quote: "I'm somewhat perplexed as to what you mean by "costs".....could you please explain, croftk? There is no financial cost for the Hosts file choices listed, or for most of the Hosts management software utilities either....this is all freeware. Also, I haven't experienced any noticeable drag on my system or any other odd system behavior....so I'm curious what was meant by the statement above......" }-Well, costs includes the time you spend updating it, time lost because the list may block a comnection you want to see anyways, performance reductions which I HAVE seen with IE, and so on and so on. These are costs just as $ can be costs.

The same benefits can be gained with zone assignments through something like SpywareBlaster and I haven't noticed any costs except the $10 a year for autoupdate capability which I gladly pay for the same protection without the "costs" I experience with hosts file based blocking.

The hosts file approach may suit others just fine, but I just don't have the time to fool with what I perceive as a learning curve when I have an alternative method to gain the same protection -- that's a "price" I'm not willing to pay.

Hosts files predate zone assignments, I'm sure, but, too bad, my particular security learnings path led me to where I am now. Good or bad, valid or not, that's my value judgment and opinion of record for the poll.

[WSFuser]

-{ Quote: "Well, costs includes the time you spend updating it, time lost because the list may block a comnection you want to see anyways, performance reductions which I HAVE seen with IE, and so on and so on. These are costs just as $ can be costs.

The same benefits can be gained with zone assignments through something like SpywareBlaster and I haven't noticed any costs except the $10 a year for autoupdate capability which I gladly pay for the same protection without the "costs" I experience with hosts file based blocking.

The hosts file approach may suit others just fine, but I just don't have the time to fool with what I perceive as a learning curve when I have an alternative method to gain the same protection -- that's a "price" I'm not willing to pay.

Hosts files predate zone assignments, I'm sure, but, too bad, my particular security learnings path led me to where I am now. Good or bad, valid or not, that's my value judgment and opinion of record for the poll." }-
time loss? if u use an app like HostsMan or Hosts Secure, then it can update the hosts file for u. it doesnt take more time than updating spywareblaster. even if u manually overwrite ur hosts file, it doesnt take much time.

as for blocking a site u want to see, that can vary between hosts files and its why i chose mvps hosts over say...bluetack's hosts.

and lastly, what learning curve is there? its just a simple text file that blocks sites.

the difference with zone assignments tho, is that it only restricts sites. it doesnt block them.

[TNT]

-{ Quote: "the difference with zone assignments tho, is that it only restricts sites. it doesnt block them." }-But it accepts wildcards. The hosts file doesn't. And that's why you'll never build a good enough one.

[Bubba]

-{ Quote: "Hosts files predate zone assignments" }-True....but one can not compare the workings of a Hosts file with Restricted Site entries in IE....unless I am totally missing a point :-\

[crofttk]

-{ Quote: "True....but one can not compare the workings of a Hosts file with Restricted Site entries in IE....unless I am totally missing a point :-\" }-I'm not the one comparing them other than to say I use SpywareBlaster and it meets my needs. Unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing broke that I need to fix so I ain't got time to fool with the hosts file or add yet another layer of protection.

Y'all can tout the glories and grandeur of host file management all you want. All I did was respond to the poll. Or is this some kind of infomercial bait and switch ?;)

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "
Y'all can tout the glories and grandeur of host file management all you want. All I did was respond to the poll. Or is this some kind of infomercial bait and switch ?;)" }-

Nope, no bait and switch....it's just that there is not a "NONE. The benefits don't merit the costs." option for this poll. So when someone responds with an answer that isn't a choice, and hints a little bit at something...I just like a little clarification, which is what I asked for and that you provided. While I tend to agree more along the lines of what WSFuser said....I still appreciate your honesty, opinion and reply.....

[WSFuser]

checking the results, im rather surprised. in most other polls heres, the results are more spread out with maybe two choices having tied votes or something. but here, MVPS hosts has an overwhelming amount (atm its 75%) of votes.

[crofttk]

-{ Quote: "Nope, no bait and switch....it's just that there is not a "NONE. The benefits don't merit the costs." option for this poll. So when someone responds with an answer that isn't a choice, and hints a little bit at something...I just like a little clarification, which is what I asked for and that you provided. While I tend to agree more along the lines of what WSFuser said....I still appreciate your honesty, opinion and reply....." }-Understood and absolutely not a problem.

It's been a while since I looked at it so maybe I'll have another look at the subject -- ya never know, you may have a "convert" pending.;)

[Longboard]

Not sure which is best.
I use MVPS file and hosts manager which is a nifty little utility of reasy updateing.

http://dundats.mvps.org/Software/Index.htm

[Longboard]

Having said I use a hosts file here was a biting critique by Kevin McAleavey of hosts files

-{ Quote: "I find it remarkable that programmes are so unsophisticated that they depend on HOSTS files for their functionality. For many computer configurations, HOSTS files aren't read at all by the operating system unless certain configuration parameters are met, and HOSTS files are readily defeated by malware simply pointing to a HARD IP address. So I'll simply say that the days of "security by HOSTS file" ended several years ago even if it still works on SOME setups. Bad idea.

With respect to the zones, that's a bit trickier. The problem for us when we did this in 4.12 was that about 75% of all "spyware" will add dozens of hard-IP entries as "secure" to those listings, will alter or weaken others and because they install hard IP's and various wildcards, it's nearly impossible to remove ONLY those suspicious listings. When a trojan is detected, the only pro-active course of remedy is to just remove them ALL and reset all of the zones, security settings and other things (like firewall settings) back to the windows defaults ala SP2. We determined that to be the safest course of action without causing BOClean to become as bloated as many antiviruses of late. That's the reason why we recommend in our documentation that folks back up any custom settings that they insist upon even if WE think diddling those things and using a HOSTS file is a really bad idea, and any PROFESSIONAL vendor which relies on those methods ... well ... I'd better not go there. It'd be "unprofessional" for ME to say that. " }-

AND

-{ Quote: "Whoops! Didn't answer your OTHER questions ... *If* HOSTS files work on your box (I'll bet you've checked, confirmed and it DOES) ... then by all MEANS, continue to use it! After all, not getting infected in the FIRST place wastes a whole lot LESS time than cleaning it out. Heh.

All ya gotta do then is make a backup of your "perfected" ... have it ready at any time it needs to go back. On MOST systems, that HOSTS file is read ONLY when the system is booted. Once it's up, it never gets read again. So if BOClean nails a nasty and DOES the winsock repairs (you CAN turn it off successfully once everyone has the 4.20.002 build later today) then just copy it back and give it a boot.

But yeah, the more chances you have to win, the better your chances of "a dollar and a dream" ... and as far as tinfoil helmets go, HOSTS is better than some of the other popular (ahem, kaff!) "solutions. I have a few places in my OWN HOSTS file ... my point being that HOSTS files didn't work under MOST versions of Windows unless "DNS resolve" was enabled and something ELSE got it read too, but can't remember what it was ... for MOST people however, write all you WANT to the HOSTS file, Windows will NEVER read it.
" }-
From

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=108368&highlight=hosts+file+clean

Still, very little effort for extra touch of security.

Watch out fro your BOClean settings if you have hosts file.

Lbd

[Bubba]

-{ Quote: "I'll have another look at the subject -- ya never know, you may have a "convert" pending.;)" }-I don't personally use one but it is definetly a viable option in regards to layered Security for those attempting to cover as many bases as possible.

Here's a Hosts tutorial (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=78363) for those interested.

[gerardwil]

I voted for MVPS.
But, after reading some more info's, for now I deleted all the 127.0.0.1 (or 0.0.0.0) entrees, I think I am protected well with my current setup.
I only left there some IP(s) from sites I visit often, i.e. 65.175.38.194 :)

Gerard

[Carver]

I also use MVPS, I also use HostsMan editer. I used to use BlueTack, but it has too much clutter (shotgun approach) and address that were infected. Every time there was a update after I installed it I had to scan it for spyware delete the offending address, then reenter the same address and rescan.
@gerardwill The 127.0.0.1 then the address tells your computer it can't go to the address, adding the address -{ Quote: "i.e. 65.175.38.194" }- tells the computer it can go there is helpfull if you ISPs DNS servers go on the blink a lot or have problems resolving a certain address.

[gerardwil]

-{ Quote: "
@gerardwill The 127.0.0.1 then the address tells your computer it can't go to the address, adding the address tells the computer it can go there is helpfull if you ISPs DNS servers go on the blink a lot or have problems resolving a certain address." }-

Thanks but I knew that :)

Gerard

[TonyW]

My gripe with using the host file is the 'page cannot be displayed' message that appears instead of the ads. It's just as bad as seeing the ad itself, and makes the page look messy.

[dawgg]

i use MVPS because it was at the top of google search.... other host files must be more-or-less the same thing... havent given the others a try thou!... probabily wont bother... MVPS is good enough

[HJam72]

ALL OF THEM!!! ;D

I take three different hosts files (MVPS, www.someonewhocares.org, and the Spybot additions--yes, I'll be looking at those others listed here) and put them (seperately) on a jump drive. Then I use a separate computer (right next to this one), with Suse on it, to run a script (Unix) I made that makes them all have one space between the "127.0.0.1" and the website name, joins them together, sorts that, and removes all duplicate lines, and then deletes several new and unnecessary files ;D . Then, I use the "Kate" editor to remove all the # lines and crud at the beginning and at the end. That leaves me with the finished product, which I copy to the hosts file in Suse. It is all done on the jump drive, so the new hosts file is already on there. Then, I move the jump drive back to this Windows PC and open the hosts file with OO.o (it's junk when opened directly with notepad). I copy it from there and paste it into the newly blank (deleted) hosts file. Last, I save it and then go back and give it protection from change in 3 or 4 different applications, lol.

Does this seem like overkill? ;D

OK, so I did this just because I wanted to play with Unix, but it works and I'm kind of proud of it ('till I get tired of all that work every time I want to update the file).

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "I'm not the one comparing them other than to say I use SpywareBlaster and it meets my needs. Unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing broke that I need to fix so I ain't got time to fool with the hosts file or add yet another layer of protection.

Y'all can tout the glories and grandeur of host file management all you want. All I did was respond to the poll. Or is this some kind of infomercial bait and switch ?;)" }-Another point to throw in the mix: if you don't visit the URLs where malware may reside, it kinda makes the HOSTS file moot. Time and again, I've said the best protection is oneself. When I hear of people putting on layer upon layer of protection measures, I have to question their surfing habits.

[HJam72]

I don't surf the internet. I'm too busy adding layers of protection in case I ever get around to surfing it. :)

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "I don't surf the internet. I'm too busy adding layers of protection in case I ever get around to surfing it. :)" }-

;D ;D ;D

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

That was good....REALLY good!!! One of the funnier things I've seen posted around here in a while ;)