Slashdot Mirror
How Security Experts Are Protecting Their Own Data (siliconvalley.com)
Today the San Jose Mercury News asked several prominent security experts which security products they were actually using for their own data. An anonymous Slashdot reader writes:
The EFF's chief technologist revealed that he doesn't run an anti-virus program, partly because he's using Linux, and partly because he feels anti-virus software creates a false sense of security. ("I don't like to get complacent and rely on it in any way...") He does regularly encrypt his e-mail, "but he doesn't recommend that average users scramble their email, because he thinks the encryption software is just too difficult to use."
The newspaper also interviewed security expert Eugene Spafford, who rarely updates the operating system on one of his computers -- because it's not connected to the internet -- and sometimes even accesses his files with a virtual machine, which he then deletes when he's done. His home router is equipped with a firewall device, and "he's developed some tools in his research center that he uses to try to detect security problems," according to the article. "There are some additional things I do," Spafford added, telling the reporter that "I'm not going to give details of all of them, because that doesn't help me."
Bruce Schneier had a similar answer. When the reporter asked how he protected his data, Schneier wouldn't tell them, adding "I'm kind of a target..."
The newspaper also interviewed security expert Eugene Spafford, who rarely updates the operating system on one of his computers -- because it's not connected to the internet -- and sometimes even accesses his files with a virtual machine, which he then deletes when he's done. His home router is equipped with a firewall device, and "he's developed some tools in his research center that he uses to try to detect security problems," according to the article. "There are some additional things I do," Spafford added, telling the reporter that "I'm not going to give details of all of them, because that doesn't help me."
Bruce Schneier had a similar answer. When the reporter asked how he protected his data, Schneier wouldn't tell them, adding "I'm kind of a target..."
Hey, we were just wondering how you secure your data?
I don't have any data.... What is this "data"
The only times I've ever gotten a virus were when I had AV running. Without AV, I don't run anything that's untrusted. Worked out well so far.
Learn to love Alaska
By virtue of the fact that he has even mentioned that using Linux is part of his reason to not run antivirus software, wouldn't the fact that he is using Linux be considered to be lulling him into exactly the same sort of false sense of security that he is accusing antivirus software of creating?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
They're only doing their job if you have a reason to use them. If you spend your time avoiding visiting unsavoury websites and have the knowledge not to downloading/open questionable files, then they're just costing you space on your PC (or in your wallet).
Also, sometimes they break.
google books hosts infected pdf files with spyware.
I had an incident at work when my coworkers found out I didn't run anti-virus software on my computer. They went so far as to change company policy to make it a requirement to use the company network. I rolled my eyes and installed MSE to make them happy.
A couple years later, I plugged that same machine's hard drive in as an external USB 3.0 device and antivirus still couldn't find anything wrong!
I'd always assumed I was running a compromised system from "Go" and used two-factor authentication to prevent unauthorized logins even if someone had my password. I pretty much just accepted there was a keylogger on that machine.
Either I had some sort of rare APT infection, or I was scared into taking unnecessary precautions by my lack of a security blanket. Meanwhile: the AV pimping co-workers probably didn't use two-factor authentication because their precious AV was protecting them.
Between the two schools of thought: their operating procedures were fragile and encouraged complacency. My operating procedures left me cautious and paranoid and I never caught an infection as a result.
I have a BIOS lock to annoy thieves if my laptop is stolen. I have clamav but I barely ever run it. I run noscript and ghostery on a Linux Mint LTS and I run the Firewall GUFW in it's default config. I have firefox set not to accept 3rd party cookies and to clear cookies at the end of a session. I lock my documents up with truecrypt, it's an older version but I am just trying to stop criminals if my laptop is stolen and it's the version that was reviewed for security, so I guess that's okay. I am thinking of setting up firejail on my next install and if things get much worse on the internet I might start using more VM's to do most of my work.
One of the last "real" newspapers / websites.
All operating systems and system software have bugs that, when exploited, can allow the system to be compromised. If you're a user, you're probably running software like Firefox, which certainly can be exploited. While servers generally don't have instances of Firefox running, they do get compromised, and you hear about it in data breaches. While some of these data breaches certainly occur because if incompetent administrators, there are still plenty of Linux systems being compromised because of the software running on them. Linux provides a false sense of security because the software running on it does get compromised somewhat frequently.
As for antivirus, software on Linux is vulnerable to attack. MS Office has had plenty of vulnerabilities that were exploited. It would be foolish to assume that LibreOffice can't be exploited, too. There's no harm in running clamav to scan files that you download to a Linux system before you open them in software like LibreOffice. I use antivirus software on Linux for precisely that purpose. It's one line of defense, one of many, but why would you remove a legitimate line of defense?
Basically, there should be many lines of defense that include:
1) Firewalls that monitor incoming and outgoing traffic, blocking undesired and potentially harmful traffic
2) Turning off unnecessary services and restricting the privileges given to essential services
3) Using strong passwords that are hard to guess
4) Encrypting and backing up data
5) Running antivirus software to monitor likely threat vectors, especially files from outside sources
6) Monitoring the system for unusual activity that might indicate a breach
The real problem with many antivirus systems is that they run with too many privileges, are too vulnerable and miss too many threats, such that they actually become a liability for the user. That doesn't mean you should avoid using antivirus software, but that you should be smarter about the antivirus software you do run.
If he did -nothing- about security, that would be true. That's not likely the case. More likely, he's using protective strategies that are appropriate for his environment and the threats most prevalent in that environment. The most common threats for Linux machines aren't viruses. Viruses specifically are more of a Windows thing. Not that there are no threats that affect Linux, they are -different- threats.
On Linux, he may use the firewall, Tripwire or another IDS, some form of IPS if only fail2ban, SELinux, etc. Also of course browser-specific things like an adblocker and NoScript. Linux has long had good support for good partition and file encryption, so he might use that, and scheduled offsite pull backups protect against ransomware.
ClamAV runs -on- Linux, but normally -for- Windows - you install on on your Linux mail server to remove viruses before your Windows clients download their mail, etc.
> If you spend your time avoiding visiting unsavoury websites and have the knowledge not to downloading/open questionable files
The number 1 source of infections is compromised ads on mainstream sites like Slashdot. Avoiding "unsavoury websites" isn't protecting you. Noscript and an ad blocker would provide much more protection, along with automated offsite backups in a pull configuration (your computer must not be able to delete/overwrite the backups, for ransomware protection).
There are viruses/malware/whatever's aimed at Linux platforms. If you're smart about it you operate like you don't have anti virus but you still use one.
I wonder how many "extras" they have on their PC but have no clue about because of the lack of AV. No one can cover all vectors on an OS nor can they predict what a file contains. Unless they're some kind of superhuman they won't even notice the majority of wares out there as the majority aren't destructive and are designed to hide from the operator.
This LUDDITE is using LUDDITE Linux, which means LUDDITE hackers can steal all of his files!
Modern app appers ONLY app apps, and only apps can app apps, NOT LUDDITE hackers!
Apps!
I'm kind of a big deal.
GP: Well duh, I assumed AdBlock/Noscript was installed on every Slashdot reader's device anyway.
Let me guess, you're vegan too?
Malware/virus scanners have root access and they are spyware. people avoid U.S. virus scanners, they are mentioned in the GCHQ and NSA documents.
Two companies are named Sophos, McAfee. And wasn't there a scandal a couple of years back with a company called "F-Secure Corporation"
who threatened to report people if they were looking at unacceptable pornographic images. Your virus scanner scans what you see, it scans were you visit it sees all that you see and it as root access.
I think a group called anonymous blamed Panda Security, for informing on them. If you have a virus scanner on your computer they see what you see.
Kaspersky Lab, At the virus conference used the slogan "say nothing".
I don't understand why people consider some sites more unsavory than others. And yes, some sites are more dangerous to visit than others, but people do an awful job of assessing the danger. Even nerds do a poor job of this, otherwise we wouldn't be on Slashdot.
Consider this: Slashdot loves to post stories that criticize other sites for abusive practices involving ads and tracking. You'd think that such a site wouldn't be engaging in the same types of behavior. However, if you look, Slashdot loads numerous advertising and tracking scripts. Trackers monitor your browsing activity across multiple sites, making a record that can be used to profile you. Ads are an extremely common vector for distributing malware. If that's not unsavory behavior, I don't know what is. We love to criticize other companies like Facebook and Microsoft for deceptive and dangerous behavior. Why should Slashdot get a free pass? This isn't the news for nerds, stuff that matters, geek site that Rob Malda, Jeff Bates, and Jonathan Pater started in the late '90s. Its changed tremendously and engages in many of the same harmful behaviors that other news sites do. And while we're at it, there's nothing anonymous about Anonymous Coward posts, either. Slashdot, its advertisers, and its trackers are all monitoring you.
So why do we consider Slashdot to be less unsavory than most other sites? It doesn't make any sense to me. Any site that engages in behaviors like that can't be trusted and puts its users at risk. We can reduce that risk by blocking scripts and ads, but even that doesn't guarantee safety. I just think even nerds, who are quite educated about the security and privacy issues, do a terrible job of deciding what's safe and what isn't. The fact that we're here posting on this site is proof enough.
Do!
heh-heh
Just because Linux doesn't have as many viruses for it, doesn't mean it's immune to viruses. In fact, Linux probably a very popular carrier for viruses - Linux host gets broken in (usually via a PHP exploit) and some files are dropped onto it and files modified so whenever a Windows host accesses it, it obtains the payload and gets infected.
Linux may not be harmed by it, but it certainly is an active participant in the propagation of viruses. Mostly because the malware authors want to target users, and 90% of them run Windows. But they can't target Windows servers, because 75% of the servers out there run Linux. So they will exploit those Linux-running servers to plant some WIndows malware on there so the Linux host distributes the Windows malware to everyone.
Linux is a carrier, and perhaps having an anti-virus may be handy if nothing more than to ensure that you're not being part of the problem and serving up stuff that infects other users. The best part is, these scanners need not be intrusive since the host can be assumed to be free of malware, so you're really just looking for bad files.
Same thing on MacOS - there's no reason to have a antivirus scanner other than to make sure you're not serving up infected files, or to alert you in case you get an email that won't infect you, but may infect someone else if you forward it on or something.
Google, for example, scans emails and documents for viruses and other malware, not because they can infect Google, but to prevent spread.
That's not my point.... the simple fact that he would even mention it as a contributing factor to not bother with AV software *IS* evidence that it is lulling him into the exact same sense of security that might happen with AV software.
I run Linux, and I don't bother with AV software either, but it's not because I run Linux, it's because AV software is shit.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It's common knowledge that if you knock out Chuck Norris with a roundhouse kick you become the new Chuck Norris.
Similarly, if you manage to steal Bruce Schneier's identity, you become the new Bruce Schneier.
No wonder he's a target. Everybody wants to be him.
My personal favorite Bruce Schneier Fact: "Most people use passwords. Some people use passphrases. Bruce Schneier uses an epic passpoem, detailing the life and works of seven mythical Norse heroes."
You're assuming that Linux and OS/X systems can only be public servers. But you shoudn't run things like a public PHP based website on the computer you use for highly confidential stuff, and if you don't it's unlikely to become a carrier for Windows viruses. Not running such services in the first place is one of the most appropriate security measures you would take on such a system. More public functions you can implement on separate machines that you protect in ways appropriate for their purposes.
Linux, the kernel, is pretty secure and reliable. But can you trust the applications running on top of it?
Firefox and LibreOffice have had plenty of vulnerabilities and are also pretty good attack vectors. If they are exploited, anything on that account could be stolen by an attacker, encrypted with ransomware, or deleted (probably the least evil of the three, assuming recovery of deleted files is possible).
It's actually pretty remarkable to me that Linux users aren't bigger targets. I work at a state university doing scientific research. (I don't trust Slashdot's anonymity, so it's very possible the editors could disclose which one.) You'd think that an enterprise user of that size would have good facilities for backing up data, programs, and other files. We don't. We don't have policies to ensure frequent backing up of data, especially our most valuable research data. We protect homework and assignments from students more than we protect research data funded by million dollar grants. And in my experience, that's pretty common at other universities. We run Linux. Our data is highly valuable. And we're extremely vulnerable. Its remarkable that we're not targeted a lot more than we are.
You might think we receive security updates, at least, but even that's a myth. In reality, the administrators don't like rebooting some of our systems because they're attached to hardware RAID systems, and the administrators are afraid that the RAIDs won't come back up if we reboot the system for things like kernel updates. On one system, I was told to install Mediawiki on it many years ago as a way of collaboratively documenting a rather large project. Afterwards, it became someone else's problem and I moved on to different projects. I'd bet that there haven't been any updates in several years. While I did properly configure Mediawiki, Apache, and the MySQL backend, it's still almost certainly vulnerable because of its age and the lack of updates. Again, this situation is far more common than you might expect.
Can we please shatter this idea that Linux is inherently secure? The kernel is, indeed, very solid. But that only gets you so far. And it's truly remarkable that we're aren't targeted far more often.
Someone once made it to the lock-box, but... I just didn't have to feed the sharks that day.
I even have a sign posted: Do not look at sharks with remaining good eye.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
You're talking about webservers running php apps. The question seems to be about desktop Linux.
...but I still install AV on every single system which I set up for other people, and I recommend that they keep using AV. Why? Because it would be considered negligent to omit it. If they get infected, which they inevitably do, then not installing AV would put me in an indefensible position. Asking a professional how they protect their data is a useless endeavor. It doesn't teach you how to keep your data secure, because you don't know all the other things they know which stop them from doing stupid things.
"I don't take precautions because they make me complacent." I'm glad that the idiots in that article aren't the ones making any decisions in the computer security industry. Note how the CEO of MalwareBytes is the exception in that article - that's the person who's worked with exploits and viruses. Kudos for not having your head in the sand.
He's now also on the Tor board (which is a declared target of his own governments rogue agency - read the memo, they planned on expanding the number of tor nodes they provide and attacking the interconnects to force routing, control exit nodes, and so on.).
Isn't it a problem that we're targets of our own (and 'friendly') countries government hackers? It's not like some *foreign* agency sent a spy into Juniper that changed the code to disable one of the random number generators (leaving NIST's backdoored random number generate as the only one). You don't see FBI kicking down doors and making arrests, so you can be sure it was our own lot.
Slashdot was targeted, not because it was/is an extremist board, it was targetted (and its readers targetted) to find out which ones worked in telecoms networks like Belgacom. So of course they'd infiltrate Tor just as they did to Juniper.
And if so, do you drive more reckless now that you know that you're more likely to survive a crash because of seatbelt and airbag? Most likely not. Your car is still a wreck if you crash.
The same applies to malware. I do have an AV kit running. But I also know that it ain't no silver bullet. It's not my first but my last line of defense, another layer of security that is there in case everything else failed. Treating it any different is dumb (and yes, I know, there are people out there who go by the logic that they can turn their brains off now that they turned their AV kit on), but simply saying that you don't need it because it gives you a false sense of security isn't too smart either.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes Good how can security provded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Ndzxp2lEU
I noticed my internet was very slow only a few days back, and a bit of investigation it was something from a Slashdot visit that caused Firefox to be filling memory up (like its memory was going through the roof, normally about 200MB, it was up in the 12GB and constantly rising). It looks like an exploit attempt running as Javascript .
A kill of Firefox and a repeat visit to Slashdot and it did the same. A connection through a temp 4G account and it was fine, so I turned off the LAN router, to get a new IP address and it was fine again.
I assume its a MITM attack aimed at Slashdot readers, but it could also be a malware advert aimed at my IP.
Which means that for a normal user of Linux. Running anti-virus is useless.
You only run anti-virus on Linux mail servers.
Just saying it like it are.
That's not my point.... the simple fact that he would even mention it as a contributing factor to not bother with AV software *IS* evidence that it is lulling him into the exact same sense of security that might happen with AV software
I interpreted it more along the lines of "AV software targets vectors that are generally not relevant or redundant on linux, so I don't bother with it." Kind of like how you might choose not to run OpenGL or a multitasking scheduler on a DOS box - you can think of some edge cases where it might be helpful, but it's not generally going to do anything. You would definitely be justified in saying, "I don't run openGL because I'm on DOS," but it wouldn't be that you think DOS has great graphics.
And replicating what they do like monkey-see-monkey-do is not an advised way to protect yourself, even if you learned what they aren't telling you.
You can do things differently and recognize/avoid risks other people would not be
able to avoid, when you're the security guy.
Protecting an organization's endpoints and servers, OR someone else's computers against themself... is very different than protecting your own computer that nobody else is allowed to touch (although you might put it on a hostile network).
The EFF's chief technologist revealed that he doesn't run an anti-virus program, partly because he's using Linux, and partly because he feels anti-virus software creates a false sense of security. ("I don't like to get complacent and rely on it in any way...")
He's quite right. We lull ourselves into a false sense of security all the time. I try to avoid it, complacency is a killer.
I drive at night without any lights on, because then if I'm in an accident it will probably be my fault. This keeps me wide awake and aware of all possible hazards.
During the day this doesn't work of course. Hence I have to drive in bare feet, so if there is an accident I'm not going to get very far trying to run away.
Or establish a sacrificial computer that you use just for getting your strange on.
For your average workstation, the easy way to lock it down is by examining all of the vectors that malware can take. From there it's usually simple.
Probably about 95% of malware comes through malicious websites. Solution: use tools like NoScript and an adblocker. Also use SELinux/AppArmor/grsecurity etc. to make sure that whatever slips by cannot do anything that your browser doesn't have permission to do. If you want to be really safe, only run your browser in a virtual machine (this is the premise of Qubes OS, by the way).
Also apply SELinux (or whatever you're using) to any programs that have listening Internet ports, like SSH and CUPS.
If you use a local email client instead of webmail, don't be dumb and allow your client to auto-execute JavaScript or attachments in emails. Also, don't be dumb and mount random peoples' portable drives without some precautions.
"There are some additional things I do," Spafford added, telling the reporter that "I'm not going to give details of all of them, because that doesn't help me."
Bruce Schneier had a similar answer. When the reporter asked how he protected his data, Schneier wouldn't tell them, adding "I'm kind of a target..."
So... security by obscurity is apparently highly regarded by the pros. Good to know.
Was going to ask...how do you make use of it, but then I figured out it was connected to your open wireless router.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
"the San Jose Mercury News asked several prominent security experts which security products they were actually using for their own data."
And while you're at it, tell us where you hide your cash and other valuables...
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Do everything Internet-related in a guest VM.
I learned this from Joanna Rutkowska; you have at least 3 virtual machines.
One is 'green' and you only ever use it for very sensitive things like online banking.
One is 'yellow' and you only ever use it for semi-sensitive things like social media.
One is 'red' and you do this for random web browsing, searching etc. This one gets re-imaged or reverted to snapshot regularly.
If you like (and have the system resources for it) you can have multiple 'yellow' VMs for multiple social network sites or email accounts.
You can set these VMs up on separate networks with routers/firewalls between them. You can use egress filtering on the green VM so that literally the only sites it can possibly reach are your online banking sites.
You NEVER EVER read email in your green VM or on your host. You NEVER use a web browser in your host.
The basic red,yellow,green VM setup is very very easy to build, doesn't take a lot of skills. Modern PC's and laptops are quite capable of running these 3 VMs.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
So what if you're a carrier? I don't give a fuck if my human body is a carrier of octopus plague, because I'm almost certainly never going to meet an octopus. (And if an octopus ever breaks into my house, that's his problem.)
This so-called "virus" is just dumb data. I'm not going to chmod +x it, ever. I didn't get it from my distro, so I'm not running it.
Saying I should worry about carrying viruses for niche OSes, is like saying I should worry about one of my TV show videos containing "subversive" messages. If you're watching my videos and you're impressed by Major Frank Burns' world view, that's your fault, not mine. I didn't tell you to +x that, either.
With the recent vulnerability in Symantec End Point protection you were less secure with it than without it.
And since I'm not a target for the Russian government that means I'm as safe as its possible to be. I don't trust American AV apps because of the NSA and because in my experience the people who write them are not the best in our field whereas security and breaching security is all the Russians do. Simplistic -- maybe, but whatever.
I only surf fully sandboxed. Twice in the past four years zero-days told me I was infected. A reboot said otherwise as the sandbox was deleted. There is no reason to surf the web other then virtualized.
That's not my point.... the simple fact that he would even mention it as a contributing factor to not bother with AV software *IS* evidence that it is lulling him into the exact same sense of security that might happen with AV software.
I run Linux, and I don't bother with AV software either, but it's not because I run Linux, it's because AV software is shit.
No I think he mentions it because there ARE no anti-virus software FOR Linux, there AV software running on Linux but they are all against viruses targetting other platforms, primarily because while Linux get targetted by many different types of exploits, so far there haven't been any traditionally viruses.
There is exactly one reason to run Anti Virus software: To be able to say you did, if something bad happens. E.g. your bank account gets hacked. Your bank will ask whether you were running AV software. Even it the software is crap, you have to run it otherwise they will try to put the blame on you. Same with your work computer: Somebody in the intranet (not necessarily you) catches a virus. The admin will check whether everybody runs AV. If you don't, you will be blamed. Even if the admin knows that AV is mostly snake oil, he will still try to put the blame on you so it isn't on him. Or if you are the admin yourself, you also probably want everybody run AV because otherwise the PHB will blame you.
Yes, there is... the place where I used to work had a Linux antivirus program on their email server that would check any atttachments for Windows viruses (most of the computers on the network ran windows).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I don't think you realized it or not but you are making the case FOR Linux. You stated you have Linux workstations and servers that are never updated because they are scared something might break. And yet, you still haven't gotten a virus or been owned.
Try doing the above with a Windows machine and see what that gets you.
Neither of them wants to talk about their own setup because it would make them more vulnerable... in other words they feel they are more secure if the obscure their practices from their adversary...
so far there haven't been any traditionally viruses
What are these?
It won't stop malware from being installed but it will sure show you where it's at (root-kits iffy).
https://technet.microsoft.com/...
If you use a Mail reader like Forte Agent: Options unhide Microsoft entries, and save resources by disabling all of MS's email sub systems (and there are many).
It will also show any files missing (mostly Codec's),
But well worth running (as admin) often.
I haven't run an AV in ages, I put a lot of trust in my HOSTS file, and autoruns just to keep check.
> What are these?
The first one is an Intel processor instruction. Nothing really to do with either Linux or viruses.
The second points out that executables contain unused bytes. In theory,there is space for someone to add code without making the file bigger.
The third never existed in the wild, as far as I can tell.
The fourth is a legit virus.
The fifth is another research curiousity - it allows root to break files. It's supposed to demonstrate a concept for a trojan, but instead if makes them not run at all.
The sixth is somebody's homework, which they titled "a good natured virus". Again, not a virus ever seen in the wild.
The seventh is in a language I can't read.
The eighth is the same site as the second - again talking generally about how someone could go about adding a trojan to an executable. Not a virus.
So one actual virus, in the first eight. I got bored after that. On the other hand, there are over 100,000 known Windows viruses.
fuck off you useless piece of shit!
fuck off your so called hosts program is a fucking fraud as are you
release the code you fucking fraud and let us determine if the code is safe. no one uses your crap software except for you and your mom, who is a shitty lay by the way
How on earth do you use encrypted mail unless all your recipients also do the same, i.e. have public/private keys of their own that are configured in their email clients? He probably does communicate with other security minded folk who also use encryption, but the vast majority of ordinary people neither know nor care about these things.
The biggest drawback to encrypted anything is that it requires everybody to use it. There's plenty of open source and secure alternatives to popular apps but there's no point in recommending say, Signal or Toxwhen all the people you know couldn't be bothered to get off Whatsapp.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
Shame that trying to game in a VM sucks hard, but that's the tradeoff.
Ultra high end games might suffer some in VM but most games run just fine for me. VMWare 12 and the equivalent Free VMPlayer work great with up to DirectX 10 and a version of OpenGL that I don't recall atm. version 12 also allows pass-through of up to 2GB of Videocard memory for the games. Hell, I even run Steam in a VM. There are some DRM heavy games that actually check to see if they are in a VM and will refuse to run if they are but there are sooo many games that run fine.
Who hosts + recommends it proven safe @ VirusTotal (all in my post - learn to read). I won't release my code to be abused as Google Chrome was https://thestack.com/security/2015/10/20/efast-malware-hijacks-browser-with-chrome-clone/ & /.'ers like & use it https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9533491&cid=52744939/
APK
P.S.=> I've got good code others like + use. You don't. You wouldn't know how to code much less audit it & I see you can't prove my points wrong on hosts' superiority to adblock either... apk
his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg
I've never tried to belittle (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon
take a look at the APK hosts file engine by SuperKendall
APK is kinda right. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo
APK is totally right on this count. Adblock Plus on Firefox mobile is a dog on older, or lower end, phones. A hostfile based adblocker makes for a much better experience by chihowa
I like your host file system by Karmashock
I find your hosts file admirable by vel-ex-tech
* My code's liked/used + recommended & hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts - how about you?
APK
P.S.=> See subject & those quoted /.'ers - want more? apk
See subject: Then it's been a pleasure reducing you to it seeing you fail @ validly technically proving me wrong https://it.slashdot.org/commen...
* :)
APK
P.S.=> Maintain your dignity trolling unidentifiable worm & have you considered decaf? Lmao... apk
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?...
Ads rob speed, security (malvertising), privacy (tracking).
Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively.
Works vs. caps & PUSH ads.
Avg. page = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of it.
Hosts != ClarityRay blockable (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode addons)
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues/complexity.
Compliments firewalls (blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lightens dns load).
Gets data via 10 security sites.
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )
Adblock can't do (or do as well) 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnet C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnet C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnet C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned/downed dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam payloads
9.) Protect vs. phish payloads
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get past dns blocks
12.) Keep off dns request logs
13.) Speed up 2 ways (adblocks & hardcodes)
14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) Ez data edit
16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu/ram/I-O use
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less vs. hosts less efficiently (a 128-151mb memory hog http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...)
ClarityRay defeats it
Ab+'s bribed not to work by default http://www.businessinsider.com...
AdBlock's SLOWER: http://superuser.com/questions...
You do realize that spamming the same message won't get you noticed more don't you?
Also, since I have technically disproved numerous parts of your spam, does that mean you have to change your spam?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Coren22 let's revisit what you constantly "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" from, ok?
"APK, I have done so much more than you" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Thursday August 11, 2016 @12:19PM (#52684621)
Coren22 what commercialware's your code as mine's is? Does malwarebytes host + recommend your work as mine currently is? What trade show did your work do well in like mine? What books, magazines, newspapers articles in computer science feature your work like I've done? You say you've done more in middle school. Ok, what was that?
What I notice is you ALWAYS RUN from that (since you're a do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" LIMITED menial), lmao - Jealous, Coren22? Yes.
APK
P.S.=> "... And silence reigned in heaven for about the space of an hour..." (silence is TRULY golden: Priceless in fact & yes, coren22 WILL avoid that as he has zero to show for himself (except more bullshit on how he hides behind his fake name online reflecting his fake life))... apk
See subject Coren22: It's a fact along w/ another fact - you'll never be noticed. Why? You haven't done anything noticeable https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9582135&cid=52799295/
APK
P.S.=> Lastly, you've never proven anything wrong of mine - you're incapable of it since you're unskilled in the art & science of computing... but I have totally BLOWN YOU AWAY many times, should I list a few with quotes of your utter screwups? Just ask... apk
See subject: star.slashdot.org (iirc, that's 1 of them) can be added to a custom hosts file to block more tracking done here (or elsewhere) by monitoring what sites Slashdot.org or its scripts redirect or send you thru using tools like wireshark or NirSoft's Network Latency Viewer (or other tools of his will also) - once you determine their hostname, they're bypassed/nullified (& you go faster as well as a bonus)!
* Yes, it's that simple to cut those other tracking systems off that you noted here (or elsewhere online again) too!
APK
P.S.=> You can cut the script sources (or not use scripts OR cookies in your browser) to finish the job off completely also... apk
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?...
Ads rob speed, security (malvertising), privacy (tracking).
Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively.
Works vs. caps & PUSH ads.
Avg. page = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of it.
Hosts != ClarityRay blockable (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode addons)
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues/complexity.
Compliments firewalls (blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lightens dns load).
Gets data via 10 security sites.
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )
See subject - Prove my points in that post validly technically wrong OR quit stalking me.
APK
P.S.=> Your 6 pm to 10 pm sockpuppet must be exhausted of modpoints... apk
See subject: It's 100% FREEWARE & you're the one downmodding me (you cheat the mod system https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9588415&cid=52804645/ to do it in that post of yours) so I just repost my posts - your "downmod points" aren't valid UNLESS YOU PROVE ME VALIDLY TECHNICALLY WRONG & you cannot do it (no more than you can show us you've done anything good in the art & science of programming which is the ultimate evolution in our field, NOT being a mere techie/admin menial who are helpless minus coders creating tools for them to use - which I do & folks here like + use it - how about YOUR creations? Zero)
You've stalked & trolled me TWICE lately using your account here COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9577115&cid=52791605/ and https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9582135&cid=52799295/ which is proof of who does what here (you're the stalker troll do nothing).
APK
P.S.=> Keep blowing those "downmod points" Coren22 - as usual, I'm smart enough to get you to do that & then as usual? You have NOTHING but egg on your face as a "ne'er-do-well" stalking harassing libeling lying do nothing blowhard that can't back up your bullshit and you use a fake name online to do it because you are nothing (& you know it - you prove it to us by not being able to show a damn thing to your credit but I can to mine, lol)... apk
See subject: So your bogus downmods are exactly that - bogus (& you know it)...
APK
P.S.=> Coren22, you're a trolling scumbag hiding behind a fake name online harassing others & you're a do nothing "ne'er-do-well" - & THAT is the real reason you use a fake name online for your FAKE miserable failure of a life... apk