Best/Favorite Hosts File Provider

Discussion in 'polls' started by JRCATES, Jun 12, 2006.

?

Which Hosts file do you think is the best?

  1. hpHosts

    2 vote(s)
    4.4%
  2. MVPS Hosts

    34 vote(s)
    75.6%
  3. Mike's Hosts

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Bluetack

    6 vote(s)
    13.3%
  5. Block Adverts

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Other (Please specify)

    3 vote(s)
    6.7%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JRCATES

    JRCATES Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,203
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
  2. sosaiso

    sosaiso Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Posts:
    601
    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.
     
  3. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    MVPS Hosts, because of its quality.
     
  4. marcromero

    marcromero Guest

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

    TNT Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Posts:
    948
    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.
     
  6. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    i use MVPS Hosts. its light (small) and effective.
     
  7. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    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
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2006
  8. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    NONE. The benefits don't merit the costs.
     
  9. JRCATES

    JRCATES Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,203
    Location:
    USA
    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......
     
  10. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    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.
     
  11. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    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.
     
  12. TNT

    TNT Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Posts:
    948
    But it accepts wildcards. The hosts file doesn't. And that's why you'll never build a good enough one.
     
  13. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    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 :doubt:
     
  14. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    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 ?;)
     
  15. JRCATES

    JRCATES Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,203
    Location:
    USA
    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.....
     
  16. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    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.
     
  17. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    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.;)
     
  18. Longboard

    Longboard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Posts:
    3,187
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
  19. Longboard

    Longboard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Posts:
    3,187
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Having said I use a hosts file here was a biting critique by Kevin McAleavey of hosts files

    AND

    From

    https://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
     
  20. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    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 for those interested.
     
  21. gerardwil

    gerardwil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Posts:
    4,748
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    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
     
  22. Carver

    Carver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,827
    Location:
    USA
    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
    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.
     
  23. gerardwil

    gerardwil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Posts:
    4,748
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Thanks but I knew that :)

    Gerard
     
  24. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,634
    Location:
    UK
    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.
     
  25. dawgg

    dawgg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Posts:
    817
    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
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.