You can do it with one file in DNS, but you can't do it with hosts.
You can't prevent resolution of IPs entirely; the browser (or other application) still tries to connect regardless of the IP provided to it. You can't do TCP based resolution preventing all spoofing exploits from succeeding and you and you can't blacklist entire domains (that includes all subdomains) with a single line either.
To the point of even complimenting DNS...!
I can do this in DNS just fine, for my entire network trivially.
That even makes up for loss of indexing by DUMPING the usermode slow stupidly inflexible datastructure design dnscache service in Windows - which my 24 favs cached in the kernelmode local diskcache do make up for, equating to 2-3++ million indexed seeks...
I would rather keep things outisde of kernel space and inside user mode, where it can be contained. It also avoids issues where applications don't use resolv().
(Which also SAVES CPU/RAM/Other forms of I-O WASTED on that mess of a faulty usermode SLOW service with large hosts files).
Breaking DNS caching on Windows doesn't seem like a good idea.
P.S.=> Clue: Running a separate system especially, that is nothing but a DNS server, WILL increase your power bills (are you stupid?).
I don't need a separate system on my network (my Linux router is good enough). You can also set it up locally on your computer if you prefer; choose the deployment best for your network.
Better/BEST way = Using hosts in COMBINATION with a secured EXTERNAL DNS server (complimenting it):
E.G.-> OpenDNS = DNSSEC..
OpenDNS sucks where dynamic IPs are concerned, DNSSEC deployment is not widespread enough to prevent DNS spoofing such as the Kaminsky exploit you pointed out, so TCP resolution is still preferred.
P.S. WTF is with the lameness filter? It really doesn't like me quoting you.
You double DNS overheads using TCP vs. UDP (inefficient "fix"),
Indeed, I increase the packet overhead for the purposes of security. I'd rather be more secure than not for such an easy change on all sites, as opposed to only the websites I have setup manually in DNS.
dns uses more electricity
Using the scientific method, could you show an electric meter making a notable difference when running a DNS server verses hosts when doing look ups? I think YouTube would host a video of such a thing for free for you.
Why does he have to be a 'Mozillian' because it worked for him? Couldn't he just be a user that doesn't experience the issue?
It cleary doesn't work for Khyber.
Khyber also claimed to me once that he ran an IPv6 only IRC network where there were lots of furry musicians on a domain that was unreigstered that I couldn't access because of some gibberish.
Your experience is totally irrelevant.
But it isn't, it shows reproducibility.
you should be pressuring the Mozillian devs to fix their busted junk.
Except maybe he isn't emotionally invested in Firefox and people who have problems like this maybe just trolling or having some other issue that's causing this.
The more you deny that these problems exist, the more people you drive to Chrome.
What if he doesn't care because he's not that emotionally invested in what browser he's using?
People are instead choosing to use Chrome, because it isn't ass slow and Google keeps making it faster with each release.
Good for them? Sounds like these people are getting what they wanted. There is no need to stop them.
A local DNS server can do more than all the above. A local DNS server can simply not resolve a specific subdomain, even an entire domain with a one liner. This prevents the browser from even trying to connect to an address.
One DNS server is sufficient for the entire network.
B.)...
With high caching settings in a local DNS server, you can have something more reliable than hosts for all sites.
C.)...
A local DNS server can get the advantages of hosts files and go beyond by using TCP resolution, which prevents known resolution exploits without the use of technologies like DNSSEC.
D.)...
1.)... 2.)... 3.)... 4.)...
Hosts files can do 1, 2, 3, 4. After all, you can setup local zone files as you wish.
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
Of course, Windows was designed in mind of large hosts file, so DNS cache has to be disabled for this to work. Not a very good workaround. Setup a local DNS server and get the benefits of running the DNS server in a low-level user account that can't touch the rest of the system and not mess with Windows internals or break internals in the process.
Additionally, you don't need the terabytes of harddrive space needed to block entire domains by generating every single subdomain possibility that you would under hosts files if you wanted to block entire malicious domains.
Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)
Instead work with a user-mode process that is running with low-level user rights that cannot touch the rest of the system.
P.S. Slashdot's lameness filter really does not like me quoting APK posts.
IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF YOU AREN'T EXPERIENCING THESE PROBLEMS!
It does, because it means theres a reproducibility issue going on here. There is something more than just having 150 tabs open.
Why do you freaks always insist on denying that very real problems exist just because you haven't personally experienced them?
Show me where I denied you were having it.
Do you know how bad it makes you and all Mozilla supporters look?
I know I didn't deny it, I just pointed out my own anecdotal experience wasn't consistent with yours.
These aren't isolated problems that people are reporting, either.
With such a large population, you should have determined the reproduction criteria because 150 tabs alone doesn't seem to be just the trigger?
The reports are numerous, widespread, yet still quite consistent.
Great, you have a large sample of people, care to actually find some reproduction information?
Firefox is slow. Firefox suffers from memory leaks.
I'm not experiencing this; can you provide reproduction information?
Firefox has a shitty UI these days.
I personally don't find the Firefox UI bad or good, it's a subjective topic and the current UI doesn't really pose any blockers or issues for my uses.
ALL OF THOSE COMPLAINTS ARE LEGITIMATE, AND ALL ARE FACTUAL!
Great, show me the facts that give the reproduction information.
The more you shitbags deny that these problems exist, the faster users run away from Firefox.
I don't really care? I'm not that passionate about Firefox. I just find people who complain and do nothing about it annoying. Sometimes I am genuinely curious about issues too, but not enough to hold your hand.
The fact that cockmongers like you feel the need to belittle
I wasn't belittling in my previous post.
The fact you care so much and don't do much effort to fix it yourself doesn't mean much to the outsider.
I do admit, I end up imaging the majority of people whom complain about any software having issues I don't experience for years on end and are unable to provide sufficient reproduction information have malware infested PCs, install addons to the software that are slow (ie: adblock+, skype toolbar) etc.
Ok, first of all, if I some how got hold of these pictures, I'd delete them.
If I got hold of them, I would be more interested in looking at the EXIF, filename schemes and other data I can look at to verify the claims that it was stolen from iCloud. I don't really care about the pictures themselves.
Integrity is good for us all.
I think real integrity is contributing help to prevent it rather than just ignoring it.
I have yet to encounter corporations applying policies or default configurations to firefox. Often there are just instructions left for configuring the browser in my experience (as opposed to the corporation Chrome, IE installs).
Speaking for myself, it always raises my hackles when someone responds in such a way that I hear "you're not mature enough for this conversation so I'll ignore any argument you make, you poor, pathetic feeb."
Which is not what I am saying, I am pointing out that there are people who react with horrible crap because they can't express themselves.
I suppose it's probably entangled with my deep-seated hatred for smug people, too.
I've been accused of being smug previously, but I have also previously pointed out that ad hominem attacks don't make an argument any less valid.
expecting enlightened reactions from everyone you interact with in life is foolishness.
Pretty much, which is why I find it strange people are so quick to attribute these issues to sexism (and other prejudicial reasons) when there are other possible answers that are so much simpler.
I bought the AVGN Adventures game from within the Valve software on my Mac. After downloading the game using the Valve software, the software said the game was Windows only, so I could not install it.
Quoting something from Apple's website to help you in this matter:
Leopard is the world's most advanced operating system. So advanced, it even lets you run Windows if there's a PC application you need to use.
They also state:
Setup is simple and straightforward â" just as you'd expect with a Mac.
Clearly you're not using your Mac in the correct supported configuration. So, this is user error, not VALVe's error.
I was really just intending to point out the fact that these people aren't helping the matter.
I understand and you make a fair point.
However, it depends on the perspective too. Another approach on the matter (for gamers) is to get the media to stop paying attention and making a fuss. This has previously worked by creating a lot of noise and essentially giving the media argumentum ad nauseam to the point they don't care anymore and the issue is dismissed. This is despite the original provocateur still continuing.
I think the origin of a lot of the sexist, racist and vile (death threats, rape threats) things said by some people in response however tends to be from people who are unable to express themselves properly and much like children act out in other ways to punish/harass/antagonize the person/thing that provoked them.
However I've known plenty of non-gamers that do stuff like this as well.
Oh, certainly.
Over all I think it is best for both genders to realize that some men and women are obviously bad, but also realize that there are plenty of good men and women as well.
I agree, although my perspective is more that I personally don't differentiate between the two. I've repeatedly found parallels for almost every scenario about a person's behavior (such as in your example).
Two kinds of/. articles keep my killfile topped up: those about global warming (deniers), and those with "men's rights advocates" who engage in victim-blaming.
Ah, I was curious why you marked me as a foe recently. Apparently it's because you perceive me as victim bashing.
That said, I reread my comments on this article, I don't see myself bashing a victim. I even went as far as defending someone's 'free speech' at one point. I provided alternative perspectives from what seemed to be non-obvious to people here and even helped provide some evidence to someone who appeared as an expert on rational.
If you're willing to put me in the same category as people who victim bash; I would actually take your point about people not worth talking to and apply it to you. The reason why is it seems you are unable to remain objective if anything challenges your view point on this subject, through a different perspective.
Also, the concept of a foe / killfile is pretty petty, announcing it further reminds me of immature kids on IRC who like to declare they've ignored someone as a way to sort of punish the person.
Interestingly, such people as yourself often become the target for trolls because they are the sort that would dispense 'lulz' due to your immaturity and incapability to handle different view points properly.
Based on the evidence I'd like to offer an alternative perspective: "Damn, look at what she's going through. Given that she saw this coming, she must be both brave and dedicated to her cause. Regardless of the quality or content of her ideas, we've got to respect her courage."
Unfortunately, I can't say I can emphasize in this scenario - Possibly due to some extreme violence in my past or alternatively because I am tired of adults that don't assess and handle risks appropriately.
Also: there's a big difference between a predictable outcome and an acceptable outcome. I hope you don't think that just because it has happened before it's okay for sadists to harass women for speaking publicly.
I don't think for a second it's a woman thing honestly.
I do think it's sad that people forget how many people out there are unable to express themselves properly and end up reverting to malicious responses (acting like children) and attacks even if they aren't actually prejudiced against such people.
I also think it's sad how quickly forget how the gaming community has reacted to every other criticism (whether the point be valid or not) over the years.
If a problem makes the community look bad, then perhaps the community needs to reduce the problem instead of shooting the messenger?
You're assuming they acknowledge there is a problem to begin with. After all, we saw many reject the claims of becoming murders, drug addicts, gaming addicts, welfare generation etc.
Previously, this sort of thing was dealt with a combination of things in the community, such as:
Ignoring
Ad hominem attacks
Strawman arguments
Genuine arguments
Shit posting
Harassment
Ridicule
Arm-chair lawyering
Flaming each other in the community
Eventually with the whole mess, this ends up becoming argumentum ad nauseam with too much cruft for the media to sort through and the gamers go back to playing games while some of the trolls continue to harass the person until the end of days.
A: 1. - I don't endorse this or use this. 2. - I don't endorse this or use this. 3. - I don't endorse this or use this B - True, but I can't remember a time when this issue even affected me or anyone else. C - I think the trivial blocking of entire domains which can be done in a single line with DNS is faster. I think the lack of resolution of blocked domains is faster than a browser getting 127.0.0.1 and trying to connect to it etc. D: 1. - Speed vs remote DNS, sure. vs local DNS? Eh, I get 0ms response times. 2. - Security - I think my method is safer, bocking entire domains that are owned by malicious entities instead of specific subdomains. Additionally, I think my TCP resolution setup in my DNS server is safer than hosts file with a blocklist and without the TCP resolution. 3. - Reliability - A locally running DNS server with similar configurations (pointing at specific IPs and what not) feasibly seems just as reliable? 4. - If you're concerned about anonymity, DNS is not where you should be starting.
Slashdot Mirror
Neon Genesis Evangelion!? AWESOME!
You can do it with one file in DNS, but you can't do it with hosts.
You can't prevent resolution of IPs entirely; the browser (or other application) still tries to connect regardless of the IP provided to it. You can't do TCP based resolution preventing all spoofing exploits from succeeding and you and you can't blacklist entire domains (that includes all subdomains) with a single line either.
I can do this in DNS just fine, for my entire network trivially.
I would rather keep things outisde of kernel space and inside user mode, where it can be contained. It also avoids issues where applications don't use resolv().
Breaking DNS caching on Windows doesn't seem like a good idea.
I don't need a separate system on my network (my Linux router is good enough). You can also set it up locally on your computer if you prefer; choose the deployment best for your network.
OpenDNS sucks where dynamic IPs are concerned, DNSSEC deployment is not widespread enough to prevent DNS spoofing such as the Kaminsky exploit you pointed out, so TCP resolution is still preferred.
P.S. WTF is with the lameness filter? It really doesn't like me quoting you.
Indeed, I increase the packet overhead for the purposes of security. I'd rather be more secure than not for such an easy change on all sites, as opposed to only the websites I have setup manually in DNS.
Using the scientific method, could you show an electric meter making a notable difference when running a DNS server verses hosts when doing look ups? I think YouTube would host a video of such a thing for free for you.
Why does he have to be a 'Mozillian' because it worked for him? Couldn't he just be a user that doesn't experience the issue?
Khyber also claimed to me once that he ran an IPv6 only IRC network where there were lots of furry musicians on a domain that was unreigstered that I couldn't access because of some gibberish.
But it isn't, it shows reproducibility.
Except maybe he isn't emotionally invested in Firefox and people who have problems like this maybe just trolling or having some other issue that's causing this.
What if he doesn't care because he's not that emotionally invested in what browser he's using?
Good for them? Sounds like these people are getting what they wanted. There is no need to stop them.
A local DNS server can do more than all the above. A local DNS server can simply not resolve a specific subdomain, even an entire domain with a one liner. This prevents the browser from even trying to connect to an address.
One DNS server is sufficient for the entire network.
With high caching settings in a local DNS server, you can have something more reliable than hosts for all sites.
A local DNS server can get the advantages of hosts files and go beyond by using TCP resolution, which prevents known resolution exploits without the use of technologies like DNSSEC.
Hosts files can do 1, 2, 3, 4. After all, you can setup local zone files as you wish.
Of course, Windows was designed in mind of large hosts file, so DNS cache has to be disabled for this to work. Not a very good workaround. Setup a local DNS server and get the benefits of running the DNS server in a low-level user account that can't touch the rest of the system and not mess with Windows internals or break internals in the process.
Additionally, you don't need the terabytes of harddrive space needed to block entire domains by generating every single subdomain possibility that you would under hosts files if you wanted to block entire malicious domains.
Instead work with a user-mode process that is running with low-level user rights that cannot touch the rest of the system.
P.S. Slashdot's lameness filter really does not like me quoting APK posts.
It does, because it means theres a reproducibility issue going on here. There is something more than just having 150 tabs open.
Show me where I denied you were having it.
I know I didn't deny it, I just pointed out my own anecdotal experience wasn't consistent with yours.
With such a large population, you should have determined the reproduction criteria because 150 tabs alone doesn't seem to be just the trigger?
Great, you have a large sample of people, care to actually find some reproduction information?
I'm not experiencing this; can you provide reproduction information?
I personally don't find the Firefox UI bad or good, it's a subjective topic and the current UI doesn't really pose any blockers or issues for my uses.
Great, show me the facts that give the reproduction information.
I don't really care? I'm not that passionate about Firefox. I just find people who complain and do nothing about it annoying. Sometimes I am genuinely curious about issues too, but not enough to hold your hand.
I wasn't belittling in my previous post.
The fact you care so much and don't do much effort to fix it yourself doesn't mean much to the outsider.
I do admit, I end up imaging the majority of people whom complain about any software having issues I don't experience for years on end and are unable to provide sufficient reproduction information have malware infested PCs, install addons to the software that are slow (ie: adblock+, skype toolbar) etc.
I have a similar amount of tabs as you and have no issues.
No, I would mug people where and when they would least expect it.
If I got hold of them, I would be more interested in looking at the EXIF, filename schemes and other data I can look at to verify the claims that it was stolen from iCloud. I don't really care about the pictures themselves.
I think real integrity is contributing help to prevent it rather than just ignoring it.
I'm using my phone on a train, I don't have a second one handy.
Skype is pre-installed with the latest version of Windows.
I found MSN names terrible. People would stick quotes, poems etc. into their name and their name was often larger than the sentences they would type.
I have yet to encounter corporations applying policies or default configurations to firefox. Often there are just instructions left for configuring the browser in my experience (as opposed to the corporation Chrome, IE installs).
Please come up with new content for jokes already.
I do apologise, I inferred this was a personal attack. Your post makes more sense in light of this now. Sorry about that.
Please do, I enjoy the attention.
Which is not what I am saying, I am pointing out that there are people who react with horrible crap because they can't express themselves.
I've been accused of being smug previously, but I have also previously pointed out that ad hominem attacks don't make an argument any less valid.
Pretty much, which is why I find it strange people are so quick to attribute these issues to sexism (and other prejudicial reasons) when there are other possible answers that are so much simpler.
Quoting something from Apple's website to help you in this matter:
They also state:
Clearly you're not using your Mac in the correct supported configuration. So, this is user error, not VALVe's error.
I understand and you make a fair point.
However, it depends on the perspective too. Another approach on the matter (for gamers) is to get the media to stop paying attention and making a fuss. This has previously worked by creating a lot of noise and essentially giving the media argumentum ad nauseam to the point they don't care anymore and the issue is dismissed. This is despite the original provocateur still continuing.
I think the origin of a lot of the sexist, racist and vile (death threats, rape threats) things said by some people in response however tends to be from people who are unable to express themselves properly and much like children act out in other ways to punish/harass/antagonize the person/thing that provoked them.
Oh, certainly.
I agree, although my perspective is more that I personally don't differentiate between the two. I've repeatedly found parallels for almost every scenario about a person's behavior (such as in your example).
Noted. Please don't forget to let Anita know that her death threats are just an anecdote too.
Ah, I was curious why you marked me as a foe recently. Apparently it's because you perceive me as victim bashing.
That said, I reread my comments on this article, I don't see myself bashing a victim. I even went as far as defending someone's 'free speech' at one point. I provided alternative perspectives from what seemed to be non-obvious to people here and even helped provide some evidence to someone who appeared as an expert on rational.
If you're willing to put me in the same category as people who victim bash; I would actually take your point about people not worth talking to and apply it to you. The reason why is it seems you are unable to remain objective if anything challenges your view point on this subject, through a different perspective.
Also, the concept of a foe / killfile is pretty petty, announcing it further reminds me of immature kids on IRC who like to declare they've ignored someone as a way to sort of punish the person.
Interestingly, such people as yourself often become the target for trolls because they are the sort that would dispense 'lulz' due to your immaturity and incapability to handle different view points properly.
The lack of proper mitigation strategy.
Unfortunately, I can't say I can emphasize in this scenario - Possibly due to some extreme violence in my past or alternatively because I am tired of adults that don't assess and handle risks appropriately.
I don't think for a second it's a woman thing honestly.
I do think it's sad that people forget how many people out there are unable to express themselves properly and end up reverting to malicious responses (acting like children) and attacks even if they aren't actually prejudiced against such people.
I also think it's sad how quickly forget how the gaming community has reacted to every other criticism (whether the point be valid or not) over the years.
You're assuming they acknowledge there is a problem to begin with. After all, we saw many reject the claims of becoming murders, drug addicts, gaming addicts, welfare generation etc.
Previously, this sort of thing was dealt with a combination of things in the community, such as:
Eventually with the whole mess, this ends up becoming argumentum ad nauseam with too much cruft for the media to sort through and the gamers go back to playing games while some of the trolls continue to harass the person until the end of days.
I see nothing wrong here.
Which happened before in other scenarios with the whole 'murder simulators', asking developers not to make such games etc. This isn't new.
I already said it was the gaming community (and, no, I don't mean the entire gaming community) like in other instances.
Or maybe criticising anything that makes the gaming community look bad earns the ire of the gaming community.
A:
1. - I don't endorse this or use this.
2. - I don't endorse this or use this.
3. - I don't endorse this or use this
B - True, but I can't remember a time when this issue even affected me or anyone else.
C - I think the trivial blocking of entire domains which can be done in a single line with DNS is faster. I think the lack of resolution of blocked domains is faster than a browser getting 127.0.0.1 and trying to connect to it etc.
D:
1. - Speed vs remote DNS, sure. vs local DNS? Eh, I get 0ms response times.
2. - Security - I think my method is safer, bocking entire domains that are owned by malicious entities instead of specific subdomains. Additionally, I think my TCP resolution setup in my DNS server is safer than hosts file with a blocklist and without the TCP resolution.
3. - Reliability - A locally running DNS server with similar configurations (pointing at specific IPs and what not) feasibly seems just as reliable?
4. - If you're concerned about anonymity, DNS is not where you should be starting.