Best/Favorite Hosts File Provider

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.

 

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.

 

MVPS Hosts, because of its quality.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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......

 

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.

 

But it accepts wildcards. The hosts file doesn't. And that's why you'll never build a good enough one.

 

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 ?

 

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.....

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Thanks but I knew that

Gerard

 

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.

 

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