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."
So, after reading the article this can be summarized as "Microsoft gives you one more reason to disable Windows Defender and use a third party AV app."
Just add the hosts file to the Defender's white list. If you know how to edit the hosts file, you should know how to add it to the white list.
Otherwise, who says the edits to that file were not malicious.
APK's sole existence seems to be reliant on advocating the hosts file as a means of host filtering, despite more modern, flexible, easier, convenient and powerful alternatives existing.
How will APK stay relevant with the demise of the hosts file in Windows 8? Stay tuned....
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Before everyone gets all excited... the article has already been updated with the fact that this is a feature of “windows defender” (and imo a reasonable one) and can be disabled.
The hosts file is popular for blocking sites, but also popular for redirecting to phishing sites as well. This seems like a very ineffective way of solving that problem, but at least it doesn’t look like there is some evil malicious intent..
In other news, running certain anti-virus products will prevent you from writing to the boot sector while they are running
As comments in the article point out, this behavior can be turned off by going to the Windows Defender settings... But by and large this make sense for 95% of Windows users as they will have NO clue about the hosts file, and even less of a clue if it has been modified for a phising attack. Nice to see microsoft take another step forward in protecting the blindingly ignorant and inept.
Prepare them for the shitstorm.
This seems like one of those situations where someone didn't think of the potential side effects. The goal was to fix some attack on specific sites, but the solution failed to consider that the mere presence of entries like Facebook is not enough to determine of the entry is in fact malicious and/or unintended. Security and expected behavior is compromised in too high a number of situations to use this software imo.
Were you really? Why?
Yeah, this is basically a cack-handed way of fixing malicious hosts redirects.
It'll prevent malicious programmes from sending you to fake Facebook, but at the expense of entirely overriding any preferences YOU as tthe computer owner might wish to make via the Hosts file.
It's a staggering level of incompetence that this is their solution. It needs to be changed and they need to find either another way of solving it or allow some form of granulation and user input.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Hope you enjoy your new 'media consumption appliance'. Its becoming less and less of a 'general purpose computer' every day.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The internet (or networks in general) are more than the web.
The main problem I see is I've never worked at a place without an airgapped or at least hyperfirewalled production/engineering network. Its actually pretty rare for that design to have a DNS server on the private net. So host file distribution is popular. As is forcing people to use/memorize ip addresses. After all, its not like a "computer" could automate hostname lookups or something like that, and enforcement and procedures give management something to do.
Anyway sounds like upgrading a production network from hosts files to DNS system suddenly got a whole lot more exciting if you've got windows 8.. Then again, people who use windows for production are pretty much already used to suffering and intense pain, so making it even less ready for the enterprise is not so big of an idea.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
This is another good reason to stick with Windows 7, giving Windows 8 a miss.
One common use of the hosts file is to test staging servers, particularly web servers before pushing them live, and without the complexity and time it takes to set up an additional DNS server.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Is anyone seriously this flaky? If you decided not to buy because of this, you were likely to change your mind later when you saw am ugly cursor or renamed mspaint or some other nonsense.
I hate grammar Nazi's.
Not a problem on my LAN. Those hosts are blocked in the main DNS server. And don't even bother trying to bypass DHCP DNS assignment. My firewall rules don't forward destination port 53 packets to the WAN interface. You either use my DNS server or you get ICMP administratively-prohibited errors. Problem solved. Next!
Just tried it on XP and 7 with MSE. MSE removes ad.doubleclick.net from the read only HOSTS file. So it's not just windows 8.
Hardly. At the enterprise level there are multiple different ways of handling situations such as this. Which one(s) you choose depends upon how you've organized Active Directory and your network.
But a different point is that this is an OLD way of phishing. The phisher is publishing the IP addresses that need to be blocked. So, again, at the enterprise level this kind of phishing would not be an issue.
If a phisher really needed to redirect traffic like that he'd have an easier time just getting the information in the local machine's DNS cache. That way it would never show up in the hosts file which means that it would be that much harder to spot. Then just keep updating the DNS cache.
So this is the wrong solution to the wrong problem and it is implemented in the wrong way. And it will probably cause more issues in the future as 3rd party developers have to work around not having the hosts file as a reliable option any more.
Nice way to remove a useful tool that's been around for decades.
The main problem I see is
That you didn't read the article and have no idea what you are talking about?
And it will still work, so what is the main problem you see again?
The option on one end is to allow the user to have full, unfettered access to everything on their system, from the highest levels down to the lowest. This was done back in the DOS and Win9x days, and although it does have a few benefits in certain niches, it's also very bad for security.
The option on the other end is to disallow access to modifying the underlying system and related settings, and only allow such actions from full administrator accounts, and maybe not even then (depending on the mindset of the development team). This pisses off a lot of the hardcore techies who like to modify everything they can, but to be fair it does help protect the average user.
Now, I'm not defending Microsoft on how they've implemented this silently and without notification to the user, but on the face of it I think it's a good idea for the average user, at least with regards to the Facebook part of it (not so much on the Doubleclick part). Think about it - the average non-techie person wants Facebook to work. They will want to get their notifications on the Start screen (and elsewhere).
I agree with other posters - they should have openly done this and notified the user before "fixing" it - something like "Your hosts file has been modified to prevent access to <site on this list>. Is this desirable to you?" with three options - "Yes", "No", "More information". That way, the techies can click "Yes" and go about their business, average users can click "More information" and maybe actually learn a little bit in the process, then come back and click "Yes" or "No" as per their wishes.
As with many things, the idea is sound, but the implementation is not. To those saying "well, malware wouldn't redirect to localhost, it'd redirect to a false Facebook", there's nothing stopping a piece of malware from being written that is similar to the existing rogue security software, but that also uses hosts to block access to various social media sites, in an attempt to give the uneducated user further reason to believe they're truly infected as bad as the rogue software tells them they are, and also as a weak attempt to prevent the user from going online and telling people about it even after the rogue software has been removed. They'll do anything to get a few more successful purchases of their crap software. I'm quite surprised they haven't really done this already, to be honest.
FC Closer
For the average joe the web is all that matters. Its web + buying stuff they can either have sent to their house ( ebay, amazon ) or watch ( netflix, etc ) + social networking...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If all you're trying to do is block ad sites, and you're willing to do it on a system wide scale, use a firewall. Set a bunch of outbound rules to block certain address. It works, the settings will survive OS upgrades, and Windows 8 won't undo the settings on your behalf.
From the article, Two of the sites that you can’t block using the hosts file are facebook.com and ad.doubleclick.net
I started using the hosts file over a decade ago, when I traced crashes that I was having to doubleclick.net. Ad supported software that I was using was receiving files from them, but it was doing a lot more than just displaying the ads (which I would not have objected to). Many users were experiencing this, but the author would not fix it so I and others started blocking the site (which resolved the problem, although the author lost some small amount of revenue).
More recently I have also started blocking facebook. I never use it, have no account there, but I've noticed an awful lot of network traffic going to and from my site with facebook.com. I'm not even a member, so I don't feel the need for them to track most of the sites that I visit. The hosts file has so far worked very well for this.
And argument that this feature is in any way for the benefit of the clueless user is bogus. The common way to block a site via the hosts file is to equate it to the IP address 127.0.0.1, which is the local machine. If Microsoft were doing this for the benefit of their users then they would simply look at the hosts file and, if they found redirects for sites that they were concerned about that were not pointed to the local machine, they might well conclude that it was potentially an attempt to hijack a domain name and then, after warning the user (and even asking him) correct the problem. This would even show the user that Microsoft was doing something good for the user for a change. But if the address is redirected to the local machine, the only reasonable conclusion that I can see is that the user wanted it that way (as it provides no attack vector). It took me about 30 seconds to realize that changing 127.0.0.1 redirects was user unfriendly and could easily be avoided if Microsoft were really concerned about their users who paid for the software. They just have to look at the IP address that the hosts file contains and if it is 127.0.0.1 then allow it to stay! Clearly Microsoft realized this too. The only reasonable conclusion is that they are doing this because they have a motive that is against customers interests.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
...just rip off iptables and be done with it already... wtf is this "protecting the hosts file" bullshit (pointless if root/admin priveliges are required to modify it in the first place)? ...and haven't they yet realised that "windows defender" is an oxymoron?
The answer is simple enough:
If you're already smart enough to edit the hosts file, you should be smart enough to add hosts to Windows Defender exclusion list.
Is this a change from the way that things were done in the past? Of course it is. This is how systems become more secure for the average user. Average Joe isn't messing with hosts.
Chicken Little, the sky is not falling.
Advantages over "other things"? Two words:
Firewall entries.
More flexible, centrally maintained, more granular, more reliable, and not prone to user tampering. Yea, how horrible.
Still not a reason to switch to Ubuntu. Especially with the new tablet optimized desktop.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
As is forcing people to use/memorize ip addresses
Which is not even an option for shared hosting setups - you can literally have thousands of websites sharing a single IP after all.
Here are a few words I want you to consider:
Defence
In
Depth.
What do you think that means?
It means that you have multiple layers of defence. Your PC should not be infected by another PC on your network or off, nor should it contribute to infection. Your router to that PC should not be infected by another PC on your network or off, nor should it contribute to infection. Similarly for your firewall and DMZ.
If you're not using HOSTS file why is the OS looking at the HOSTS file for ANYTHING???
Really. If you can't trust that file to be correct, then the OS shouldn't decide for you that it is correct.
If they were, then there would be no use of the hosts file by the OS to look up things.
Now if you set it, but the machine gets infected, the OS can be made, despite your lockdown, a change to that hosts file and screw up the scenario you thought you were protecting.
If this were about getting rid of the hosts file, why is the OS still looking at it and even changing it?
On what planet does it make sense to change entries in a file on the system and not even warn the user that you are doing so? And since they are reportedly making the changes selectively, then if there were really an attacker his attack could have made other changes, but the user was never warned that the host file had anything "suspicious" in it and so would not be aware to even look at it and see if there was anything that the Great and Powerful Microsoft had missed. This isn't for the user, it is purely for MS's own interests.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
To not buy windows 8 and just stick with windows 7.
the Hosts file is targeted my malware to redirect to malicious sites and to keep under the radar to infect systems after they have been clean. (or even to a locally hosted proxy to infect sites like Facebook) Personally, I've seen facebook and myspace targeted in it. Never seen doubleclick but my guess is doubleclick is a target so that they can redirect to their own profit generating ads, or more malware to attempt to extort money out of people.
My guess is that the sites defender removes from hosts are sites that have been targeted by malware in the past. Frankly, I'd like to see the list of domains it looks for, but I'm sure that I woudn't want any of them redirected to some scumware site trying to pawn off fake antivirus.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
Well, need is subjective. But I like to play Doom 3 every so often (particularly with mods like The Dark Mod, a great Thief clone), and the hosts file is something of a necessity. For those who don't know, Doom 3 originally had old-school CD copy protection (i.e. need the disc in the drive when launching the game). The final patch removed that requirement, but changed it so that the game will attempt to authenticate the serial key against a master key server run by id/Activision. If the key fails (in use by someone else and/or a blacklisted key), the game won't run.
A few years ago I discovered the game thinks my legit serial key is in use/dodgy for some reason, which put me in a bit of a pickle. Fortunately, I discovered that if I put in a particular domain to redirect to 127.0.0.1 in my system hosts file (and this works for both Windows and Linux), the game won't be able to connect to the key server and will simply assume the key is OK and continue. I could have gotten a crack I suppose but I don't want to have to rely on cracks which may or may not have side-effects, plus I doubt one would exist for Linux anyway.
Side note: This is one thing I like about this authentication system in old games like this- if it can't verify your key/access, the game gives the player the benefit of the doubt and keeps working. Hence if the game is played when the Internet is down, or the key server disappears, the game will continue to work. Not like modern commercial games.
Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
Solution was to dive into the registry and turn lots and lots of things off.
Sites that offer up AIO registry hack packs for windows should be more common.
I would totally pay for it. My time is worth enough that just getting a giant pack that has everything nicely labeled and organized would be worth a mint.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If one redirect a site to 127.0.0.1 from the aforementionned double click, chance that it is a malware is nil. Before removing the entry windows defender should check the IP and leave it for those site at 127.0.0.1. OTOH if it is an anti virus site it should remove it if it is precisely 127.0.0.1. If they went the extra way to check for some specific web site, then they should have done the extra way and check for the IP. Or make a pop up windows warning of the behavior and how to stop it.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Readers with actual reading comprehension would be a good thing, too.
From what I've read, it doesn't complain when you actually edit the hosts file, but rather when you visit some specific websites that are listed in the hosts file.
By the sounds of this, turning of any A/V software during the edit wouldn't help at all, because it isn't that it blocks the save of the edited file, it's that it deletes the individual line for the blocked site you're currently wanting to visit.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
See, this is why idiots will always be prone to infection, regardless of what operating system they use: because they don't understand security for shit.
Think about it: if a process has permission to write to the hosts file, it can also remove the immutable bit in the filesystem attributes.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
The "Airgap" meme is still around? Surprises me as it is basically a direct lie. Best implementation I saw was a wireless link combined with a firewall, i.e. reasl, physical and completely meaningless air-gap.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Considering that the only time that software ever deliberately damaged my system (and actually managed to damage my firmware) it was from update.microsoft.com, I wouldn't be so fast to assume that if you frond that URL blocked, that it wasn't intentional on the part of the user..
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
A lot of cracks rely on changing the host file to prevent activation / phone home. Maybe this has something to do with Microsoft's decision.
Piracy. Using the hosts file to block calls from installers out to verification servers is pretty common. This would effectively end that method for circumvention.
Uhhh...he GAVE you an example, his shop floor manufacturing software requires it, end of story. Anybody who has worked with SMBs knows you end up with a ton of niche software that can have some crazy requirements, hell I've had to build a DOS 3 box in 2008 because a shop had a $150k lathe that required a PC with an ISA slot running DOS 3 to use the unit.
In the end frankly it shouldn't matter WHY he is using it, what should matter is MSFT is taking choice away from you yet again with no real gains. If MSFT thinks its a malware vector? Then let the use of HOSTS be set by GPO using local access. that way those that actually need it can enable it and those that don't use it will have it off by default. Frankly more and more MSFT is reminding me of a bad Apple ripoff with their "our way or the highway" attitude on everything, but unlike Apple their biggest customers aren't consumers, its businesses who are more likely to have the weird corner cases that this will cause headaches for.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
File Access has been a shattered illusion since I came to understand that any user account to which assigned administrative privileges was still kept from accessing certain files for lack of sufficient 'privilege' regardless of what I attempted to do to circumvent Microsoft's control or that of their partners.
This is pure bullshit. Even files for which you have no access (on a bog-standard Windows install this is the SAM and the System Volume Information folder, the first of which is the Security Accounts database and is only unreadable because Windows holds it open for exclusive read - for good reason, and the second is the container for system information for which you'd have no interest, such as restore point data), you can take ownership of the files and then just go right ahead and do whatever you want. If an application removes your ability to access a file, then that's a problem with the application not Windows.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
is that you bill o'rielly?
you wrote the book on how to be a homo
The HOSTS file is not for blocking things; it is for optionally providing an alternative way of looking up some local names besides using DNS, in an enterprise network with what is today called a local intranet. It has fallen into disuse, mostly exists for legacy reasons; maintaining HOSTS files across machines in a network is inefficient; maintaining a local DNS service is normally the more appropriate strategy, and blacklisting can be implemented on the Enterprise's DNS service.
A perfectly appropriate firewalling mechanism exists in Windows called Windows Firewall with Advanced Security; which allows you to set an outbound firewall rule to block opening all connections to a specified server. This is safer than HOSTS file, because it simply blocks the address, without tampering DNS lookup results, and enabling a site to be repointed to a phishing site..
HOSTS file is commonly abused or misused for nefarious purposes; its use for any purpose is strongly discouraged, and has been unsupported for a long time. It would be no surprise to see the DNS resolver of a future version of Windows drop HOSTS file functionality entirely, and move towards Group policy configuration, or Administrator registry configuration for any 'manual local names'.
HOSTS file use as a mechanism for blocking or 'firewalling' things is also unsupported. The HOSTS file is not a firewall, and the HOSTS it not a DNS access control mechanism. It's still perfectly legitimate for a DNS resolver to attempt lookup via the DNS as a failover strategy, if the entry in the HOSTS file seems bad or non-responsive. Browsers may do this; browsers may even bypass the HOSTS file entirely, because it is commonly abused by malware.
Malware and Adware commonly mess with this file to hijack users' browser by creating false host entries for common websites to point them to malware author-controlled domains.
Disabling the ability to silently do this on consumer-targeted OSes improves security. This security feature/change is appropriate for end-user systems that are not part of a large enterprise intranet with unusual requirements necessitating local resolver entries.
If the site is intended to be blocked or "legitimately" hijacked/misdirected; enterprises have more appropriate, more scalable means of implementing this; such as DNS server based blacklisting, and configurations on edge firewalls.
if a process has permission to write to the hosts file
that question is the problem with windows security in general...
the answer is that unless it is required for windows to run, or unless the user logs in as administrator with a password that is at least 6 characters long and consciously executes such process, it shouldn't have such permission.... ever....... full stop
It looks like you've responded to the wrong post, friend.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
i'm sorry i couldn't understand you with your mom's cock in your mouth
2.) Eats CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O
Hosts file doesnt have to be loaded into RAM? Rejecting packets outright is more CPU intensive than trying to route to 0.0.0.0, having to do a route lookup, failing, and discarding the session? Hosts file doesnt incur I/O penalty?
Dude, you are so far out there on this one, Im not sure you understand how quick your average firewall can drop a session compared to relying on a crappy HOSTS file redirect to 0.0.0.0.
Hell, look up rootkit.com, & see their article on "Windows Firewall" Vista onwards being EASIER to "unhook".
When I spoke of a "centrally managed firewall", that is most emphatically not the Windows Firewall. Cisco, Sonicwall, pfSense, ipTables, take your pick, all of them are zillions of times better than Hosts:
1) faster
2) easier to maintain
3) has built in logging
4) user cant bypass or tamper, even with escalation exploit
5) less prone to breakage
6) can filter by protocol, hostname, and port, not just IP
But you know what? Keep pushing hosts files as a viable business solution, Im sure youll get lots of business doing so.
Doubleclick is Google. This is probably just Microsoft trying to brown-nose its way with them...
I certainly don't want it redirected to some other unknown IP address!
There's no place like 127.0.0.1. It's hardly an unknown IP address
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
No, I believe he did reply to the correct one. If you click the Parent link in his post, you can see. However the problem here is that for some reason Slashdot hides some messages sometimes. I myself see this message above his, when I'm in the main thread view.
retard
No, fuck you. The majority of the stuff in Linux distributions is not GNU. There are various GNU toolchain items, yes. There's also some BSD toolchain items, a metric fuckton of non-GNU items (the entire GUI subsystem for a start).
And perhaps as important, or even more so, is that the GNU toolchain is useless without a kernel such as Linux, but Linux still retains its usefulness without GNU. So how you can claim that not only is it vitally important that we recognise the GNU components as part of the OS name, but also that we recognise it as the most important part of the OS by including the name GNU first frankly boggles the mind. GNU is not an operating system, and nor is GNU/Linux. If we're required to include the GNU in the name then the system really has to include the name of every major component. So BSD/GNU/X11/.../Linux.
Moronic fuckwit.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
This has apparently been known about a for while in some developer communities. The first result in a Bing search for "windows 8 hosts file" returns a MSDN post from Sept 2011 identifying the problem.
a niche of geeks who seem to think it somehow superior to firewall rules
An entry in a hosts file is a firewall rule. The advantage of a hosts file is that one doesn't need to install extra firewall software. And even if you do install external software, it can still use the widely understood input format of a hosts file.
or adblock lists
Adblock is fine for your web browser, but what can you use to block access from applications other than a web browser? You need a firewall, and one that operates at the DNS level is built into your operating system: the hosts file.
DEY
reimaging a dev laptop for a DNS change sounds like an enormously bad idea ("where did all my source code go?")
All you need to do is check it out again, you silly git.
I don't have a Facebook account; I graduated and lost my .edu address before Facebook even existed. And I don't want Facebook's like button code to slow page loads while building a dossier on me any more than it already has. Other than using a hosts file or installing a DNS server on localhost, what do you recommend for blocking web sites from loading the like button?
So what will people use as a media production appliance?
use a firewall
Hosts is a DNS-level firewall already built into your operating system.
Set a bunch of outbound rules to block certain address
Which works until the hostname starts pointing at a different IP address. Round-robin DNS tends to do this. A hosts file, on the other hand, maps all requests associated with a given hostname to an invalid address. It acts in effect as a hostname-based outbound rule set.
DEY
Sorry I don't read at -1.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
Sure, get your forum users to join your AD first. Call me when you've succeeded. /facepalm
I can see why all of your posts end up at -1. Lunacy at its best.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
That comment wasn't a "random, flailing, insult-hurling rant."
It was quite directed, and to the point. It was also true.
This tirade of yours, on the other hand:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3058625&cid=41051235
was random, flailing, and somewhat nonsensical.
I can only think the fact that you immediately jump in to any thread even remotely mentioning "APK" with huge, rambling tomes of crap spouting about how superior you are to virtually everyone in the entire history of computer technology, means that you are, in fact, deeply insecure, unsure of yourself, and require validation from others to improve your pitiful view of yourself, so use a massive, over the top superiority complex to attempt to do this.
I'm pretty sure a few counselling sessions would help you with that, unless, of course, you attempt to prove how much better you are than the counsellor, and they end up kicking you out for being....well....yourself.
And if counselling doesn't work, then there's always SIG.....
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
moron
and real programmers use iptables scripts, not hosts... moron
Tell me, why is it that you feel the need to reply twice to virtually every single post directed at you? Do you go on frantic Google searches trying to find ammo for your hopeless arguments?
Ok....here's a response to one of your points:
You claim blocking sites via a hosts file results in speed. That was your first point in the parent post to this one.
Only one problem with that:
A large hosts file will actually slow down the PC, resulting in...well....not speed.
By the time you get all the ad servers, virus C&C servers, malware servers, drive by download servers, etc, all in there, it's going to be huge.
From http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm:
Editors Note: in most cases a large HOSTS file (over 135 kb) tends to slow down the machine.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
laughing at your own jokes... good one apk
def reverse(s):
try:
trollstring = ""
for apksays in s:
trollstring = apksays + trollstring
except:
print("error/abend in reverse function")
return trollstring
s = ""
print reverse(s)
try:
s = "Insert whatever 'trollspeak/trolllanguage' gibberish occurs here..."
s = reverse(s)
print(s)
except Exception as e:
print(e)
ParseError: bad input on line5
http://mathcs.holycross.edu/~kwalsh/python/
P.S.=> Additionally + Lastly: Like ALL my code? It works well... apk
wasn't any error here where it mattered
if you really were a programmer, you would know that it either compiles/interprets or it doesn't... there is no "where it matters"... tard
and what is the topic? do you (ever) even know? you like nothing more than crapping on about custom hosts and open sores and all sorts of other unintelligible garbage
yeah i know... i'm feeding the troll (smacks self)
i wish i could have seen your face when you read this http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3058625&cid=41091833
pwnage
I always get the last laugh?
you laugh at your own jokes and you're a troll... duh!
P.S.=> Care to tell us what the "parse error" was, 'CruTcHy'? I doubt you even know, & the funniest part is, YOU caused it... lol!
i don't care what it was... python is an ass of a language, and if i had caused the parse error you would have shared it already just to rub it in my face (not that i would give a toss even if you did), so you're full of shit... i make mistakes when i'm programming, but i'm not a self-proclaimed god like you make yourself out to be
lol i so gotta stop feeding trolls
if it took you 15 minutes to come up with that garbage you aren't really proclaiming yourself to be that great at programming
i have never programmed python before; my preferred langauges are delphi and php
anyway, i may have pasted the code with no indents in my slashdot comment, but i pasted it verbatim into the interpreter from your comment (with indentations)... so while it may run in your interpreter, as you posted it in your comment (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3058625&cid=41052117) the for loop statement (on line 5) isn't indented... hence the parse error
error trapping is for runtime exceptions, not compile/interpret time parse errors
and if you want to reverse a string, here's a simpler example (not my code, but you being the expert you supposedly are surely could have come up with it yourself):
s = 'abc'
s = s[::-1]
print s
only took me about 30 seconds with agoogle search, no indenting required, and it works in the previously linked interpreter
had a squiz at your hosts file program... most of us just use notepad or gedit, but whatever floats your boat... and 37+ Mb of memory!!! did you disable debug info in compile options (or directives)? either that or you just use one of the newer bloatware versions... i guess i'm just lucky i still use delphi 7.
i develop mainly engineering software (flight test data analysis and structural code compliance, among others) for companies i've worked for using delphi and php... none public sorry
refer to my other comment for the parse error (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3058625&cid=41117989), since you asked
Hey, stupid? I knew that already
the comment you link oesn't show anything about the indentation bug or a simpler way to code your string reversal... you were (before i highlighted it) completely ignorant of it (rotflmao!!!!), what is this "not really coding" bullshit... nice backpedal tard.
you're an arrogant moron, and i caught you out on your code that you're so proud of.... hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!
P.S.=> Additionally + Lastly: Like ALL my code? It works well... apk
lol yeah unless it has a bug that you need someone else to find.... BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
apk... the self-proclaimed ruler of programming, that took a whole 15 minutes to write a pointless bit of jibberish just to reverse a string... caught out with a bug in his posted code... THAT HE COULDN'T FIND!!!!!! OMG HOW FOOLISH MUST HE FEEL NOW !!!!!!
P.S.=> "Onwards, & UPWARDS"... I RULE!
yeah... you rule your own vagina
i don't even use an IDE for my php apps... i use gedit, which is basically windows notepad except with syntax highlighting
the only ounce of sense i got from your entire comment was that data explains the memory usage... fair enough (i didn't realize there would be much need for large data stored in memory for something as simple as a hosts file generator... even if you're downloading from a http server or something, and if you have an open file handle for writing out you shouldn't need to store the entire hosts file content in memory)
maybe look at how you're storing the data... maybe use packed records. i can process gigabytes of flight test data without using much memory (data comes in, gets processed, and gets written out)
and why the hell would you need a 64-bit program to generate hosts files? sounds like a bit of a dick waving stunt to me.... not surprising for you
why would i even bother with the interpreter unless i suspected a bug.... FOOL!!!!
i found a bug in your posted code that you thought was perfect.... and YOU CAN'T STAND IT... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
i'm happy now.... cheers fuckface
nobody but you gives a toss about a noob delphi program that creates a blacklist hosts file... even the form layout stinks of amateur
python relies on left indentation... you didn't indent the print statement in the for loop in your posted code... i don't care if it worked in your interpreter... the fact is YOUR POSTED CODE HAD A BUG, and you couldn't find it before I did HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! suck shit dickwad... i wouldn't know but i imagine it sux to be pwned like you are right now
you can bullshit all you like.... you're pwned on the python script in two ways (first the indentation bug, which i found first, and second the complexity of something that should have been so simple, which highlights how much of a noob you are)
hosts is useful, but no as much as a proper firewall like iptables, and a blacklist hosts will always be prone to any kind of zero day attack as much as anything else that relies on a blacklist
you're an amateur freetard who likes to blow smoke out his ass as one of the most infamous slashdot trolls
i found a bug in your posted code before you could and no amount of bitchslapping from you is going to change that fact... you're just going to have to live with it
Turning off the DNS cache doesn't eliminate the problem. It merely increases the size of the hosts file that can be used before the slowdown becomes noticeable.
Yes, it needs to be a huge hosts file, but it's still going to be a problem.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
i found a bug in your posted code before you could and no amount of bitchslapping from you is going to change that fact.... you're just going to have to live with it
the code paste in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3058625&cid=41091833 was merely to point to the code that you posted... the code that was actually pasted into the interpreter was copied and pasted verbatim from your post, with indents
go back and have a look at the code you posted...
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3058625&cid=41052117
the bug is there... on the fifth line
if i pasted the code without any indents at all, a parse error would have been thrown for line 2... it wouldn't have gotten as far as line 5
so, like i said, your code may have worked perfectly in your interpreter, but the code as posted IN YOUR COMMENT (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3058625&cid=41052117) had the bug, so the bug was not mine
it wouldn't even be a big deal, except that you can't help but make it a big deal with things like...
P.S.=> Additionally + Lastly: Like ALL my code? It works well... apk