Slashdot Mirror
Windows 8 Changes Host File Blocking
An anonymous reader writes "Windows 8 has been confirmed to not only ignore, but also modify the hosts file. As soon as a website that should be blocked is accessed, the corresponding entry in the hosts file is removed, even if the hosts file is read-only. The hosts file is a popular, cross-platform way of blocking access to certain domains, such as ad-serving websites."
Precisely. It's smells of a bad excuse for some money under the table.
I am John Hurt.
Why is that a dream come true for an enterprise IT manager? You *want* employees to be on facebook? Or are you saying that crazy behavior on the windows platform ensures your job security?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
The read-only flag is largely disused. The NTFS permissions are the new one and, oddly enough, it's impossible to write to the hosts file without running as admin and clicking the 'this program wants unrestricted access' dialog. But Microsoft knows just as well as everyone else in IT that to the typical user, that dialog is meaningless: All they know is that clicking yes makes the computer do as it's told.
Considering that the number of systems hit by malware making use of HOST file modifications is far larger than the list of systems using it to block access to sites, the balance of evidence is in favor of what Microsoft is doing. I know some people who have extensive files, but that group is very small. LordLimecat was right: it's a feature from a bygone era that is used more often for harm than for good. Even adding a switch to the functionality (which might well be there in the form of a registry entry) doesn't help because that switch will get flipped by malware.
Sometimes features once useful outlive that usefulness.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
MS sells ads. The biggest use of the HOSTS file is blocking ads. Google wishes they could do this.
I've seen it done by managing the hosts file with a login script. The issue was that two companies merged with separate intranets that had intranet names that overlapped public names. The DNS merge was months away, so hosts allowed employees in both companies to get to both intranets until DNS was set up appropriately. I can't argue it was best. I can only argue that because of business reasons, it was just about the only possible solution (natting could have worked, but it was uglier).
Learn to love Alaska
Why 'fix' something that isn't broken?
Because it is broken.
Malware can easily change the hosts file and screw you up, it's really a hole in name resolution security.
Ask and ye shall receive Comodo Personal Firewall. Free, easy to use, has sane defaults while at the same time letting you control any in or outbound with any kind of rule you can think up. Personally I'd just take Comodo Internet Security Free as it gives you the AV and Firewall in one, has sandboxing, again a ton of control over the AV, oh and their license makes it free for home AND business use.
With Windows if you want anything more than the basic you really gotta go third party, that's just the way its always been. I happen to like it that way as it gives me plenty of choices besides whatever MSFT packs in. That said the Win 7 firewall isn't bad, you click on advanced and you can cook up your own rules, not nearly as fine grained as Comodo but for a basic firewall it isn't bad.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
in the case of the host file you could simply require administrator permission. If the malware has admin access you have already lost. And if the malware is affecting the host file currently then the problem is still not in the host file or its implementation it is that the malware is on the system to begin with and the hole it exploited to do so in the first place is what need fixed.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.