MVPS hasn't updated in a very long time. I need a reasonably active source of updates for my HOSTS file, if one does exist. I will greatly appreciate any & all suggestions. Aloha from Hawaii to all ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I also used MVPS, I have been using Steven Black hosts for a long time https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
@boldrake -- I shall give Steven Black's "main+social list" HOSTS file a trial. It's huge & looks REALLY good. Thanks to the nth & WELCOME to Wilders!!!
@bellgamin steven black's is very good and actively maintained. here are some solid alternatives: oisd: https://oisd.nl/ lightswitch05: https://www.github.developerdan.com/hosts energized: https://github.com/EnergizedProtection/block 1hosts: https://badmojr.github.io/1Hosts
Also a good one: Peter Lowe's hosts file: https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/serverlist.php?hostformat=hosts&showintro=1&mimetype=plaintext&_=0 (is included in uBlock Origin as a default list) I also use Dan Pollock's hosts file: https://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts (is included in uBlock Origin as a default list as well)
Lots of good suggestions. I'll give most of them a trial. By the way --- I use HostsMan so it's very easy to do try various sources. For those unfamiliar with HostsMan, it's a freeby & portable so it's no problem to give it a try-out. HostsMan helps me manage the HOSTS file painlessly PLUS it lets me merge two HOSTS files and (on demand) scan the HOSTS file for hi-jacks & duplicates. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ @nicolaasjan & @imdb -- My browser is SlimJet, a Chrome clone. Which of the following do you recommend? 1-Run HOSTS file but not uBlock Origin (uBO) or 2- Run uBO but not HOSTS file. or 3-Run both HOSTS file & uBO
use nextdns and ubo. nextdns also autoupdates filter lists. nextdns for dns level blocking and ubo for more granular control of website elements at browser level. https://nextdns.io
Option 3, but I have the Hosts file options under "Multipurpose" unchecked. A dedicated Hosts file applies system wide.
@nicolaasjan -- Where is located Hosts file option "Multipurpose"? @imdb -- will watch the vid tomorrow. It's 1 AM here so beddy bye for now.
HOSTS files are very inefficient as they require a rule for every sub-domain - which makes them so large. I'm using dnscrypt-proxy instead. It comes with various goodies, among them its flexible filter syntax which supports place holders. And a simple rule like example.com covers all of its sub-domains. While in a HOSTS file hundreds or thousands of rules are necessary to cover all sub-domains of, e.g., doubleclick.net. A good dnscrypt-proxy compatible list is a HOSTS file on steroids as it covers more with considerably fewer rules. There are several public blocklists available, among them mybase which is comprised of various filterlists and maintained by the dnscrypt-proxy author. Those filterlists are the uncommented ones in this file (as a matter of fact practically all of the commented ones are already included in the notracking list). However, you can uncomment/add more lists at will in that config file and create your own comprehensive list with generate-domains-blocklist.py.
@nicolaasjan - got it. 10Q! @Spartan - That's strange. I have used HOSTS files since 1998 & never had one such problem. @imdb & @summerheat -- Excellent suggestions but not for me. I am retired & everything on my computers work great, so I avoid the possible aggro of making tweaks & changes to what is not broken. My set-up works fast enough, & I have never had an infection or blue-screen-of-death that couldn't be fixed by a simple Restore of a clean image. IMO, imaging is THE best & simplest security -- for me, at least. However, I have passed your excellent suggestions on to my several adult grandchildren & adult great-grandchildren (3 in college now). They are all computer whizzes on the bleeding edge of new stuff. I also feel fairly certain that some Wilders members may give your suggestions a trial -- a goodly number have visited this thread so far.
@bellgamin i understand. then i recommend you go with the third option and "run both hosts file & ubo".
I guess I'm a little lost. Why use a hosts file at all, since it's been proven that Microsoft can bypass it any time it wants? Why not just use an adblock/tracker blocking DNS service, such as NextDNS or ControlD, that works at the adapter level? You can often still use the same lists, but without the risks of Microsoft bypassing them. @bellgamin, I'm pretty sure I also bleed green!
When you load a HOSTS file the DNS service checks each entry, so the bigger the list the longer you see svchost.exe being busy. You can't use the net until it finishes.
You can try disabling the DNS client service and restart. This service is only used for caching DNS entries and on the modern internet DNS lookups are fast enough (~8.5 to 9ms here). [Edit] Just tried this in a Windows 7 virtual machine and had immediate network connection.
not possible with official clicks since windows 10+. anyhow both machines here are fast enough to deal with 62.000 entries without stutter. my older machine (which was replaced, win81) had performance issues with same list.
Indeed. Just checked it and in services.msc it's greyed out and disabled: You can control the behaviour via the registry however. https://www.thewindowsclub.com/enable-the-dns-client-service-if-greyed-out
i know that workaround, which is used on my older machine (sorted out). i just changed some entry on HOSTS file (62.000) and DNS service took some seconds (<1 min) to work on it. thats ok. for me, dns service is not really needed, because my router has its own dns cache and firefox has also its dns cache. in such cases its ok to disable, but not further.
