HOSTS files combination! (?)

I'm currenlty testing MVPS hosts file, but I also have SpyBot S&D in my system which adds entries in the host file.

Should I keep MVPS, SpyBot S&D, a third one you could suggest, or all of them combined together?

Thanx in advance!

 

Hi,

I would like to add a 5th option: Or should I be better to use none at all?

Gerard

 

Of course, that's just ridiculous. I've always found that Hostman along with MVPS, Mike ad nlocking hosts, and Peter Lowe's AdServer List does a great job.

 

I have been using MVPS Hosts file for several years with no problem. I also use hpHosts file. I use HostsXpert to merge the two lists.

 

Maybe I misunderstand, so please explain this.

Gerard

 

Why would you not use a hosts file; what are the costs compared to the benefits of using one? There is no downside to a customized MVPS hosts file. A hosts file adds another layer of security when you're on the internet yet it uses no system resuorces. So, in my opinion, the choice is easy....use it. It makes no sense not to have one.

 

I placed the MVPS hosts file in windows/system32/drivers/etc and then run SpyBot S&D to immunise.

It was strange to see that from the 8200 hosts entries SB currently has, it recognised only 1000 on the MVPS hosts file!

That means MVPS and SB differ at about 7200 entries

Whatever that means.

 

What you answered here is well known to me. Still I don't see anything about: ridiculous.
Does it come up to your mind there might be other tools to achieve the same or better?

Gerard

 

Since you have a combined HOSTS file, can you test something for me ?
Go to this website.
http://www.faronics.com/html/orderinfo.asp?reg=USA
This website contains a link to Faronics "Online Store", located at the right top corner of this website.

Do you have access to this "Online Store" or not ?

 

I meant that it would be ridiculous to even question using a hosts file because there should be no ill effects to your machine because of it. Everyone should be using one. As far as other tools are concerned. I can't think of any, but then again I don't really believe in immunization of malware. But what do you mean when you say

The same or better what? Results?

 

I seem to be able to access the online store. I am redirected here.

 

OK. That's the one. Thanks.

 

The only downside I have ever heard to using a large hosts file is that it may slow down your browsing if you don't turn off your DNS client since the computer has to look through both the hosts file and the cache. However, I personally don't have experience using a hosts file, so this isn't from firsthand knowledge.

 

There used to be an excellent website, www.hostsfile.info , dealing with just the information you are looking for. Unfortunately I believe it ran into financial difficulties as it depended on donations.

From what I recall there was a list of all the popular hostsfiles listed in this thread and then some. Each had a rating taking into consideration the number of dead links, age of the file, search engine censors, size in kb, extra text, etc. One of the better ones, from my memory, was the Spybot hostsfile as it had little to no censoring, relatively small size compared to some, and fewer dead links.

Usually I find that a hostsfile gets outdated much more quickly than a new one is posted and they block content I actually want to see, such as ads for my local newspaper. If I use one at all I like to use the malware blocklist at www.malware.com.br . It is small in size so the DNS client does not need to be disabled. It also comes in many (29) other formats for use in adblock, bind dns servers, firekeeper, etc.

I hope this make sense.

 

Check out this old thread:

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=188934

or

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=195284