Blocking websites without a filter

neo_bahamut1985 · Post by **neo_bahamut1985** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:01 pm

Okay, suppose I wanted to block specific websites and suppose I didn't want to use filtering software; my reason for not wanting to use filters is I think they cause more issues than they fix. The one I use now blocks websites that aren't even bad at least 95% of the time. Next I tried to add them to a block list in my D-link router. That didn't do anything, either. Then I stumbled upon this: http://www.sheeptech.com/block-websites ... -softwares which tells you how to edit the Hosts file in the Windows directory. This seems to be the least painful way of doing it, as there aren't that many sites to block. My questions are, however, one, is there a huge risk in doing this, and two, if it's perfectly safe, should I do it?

Post by **odditude** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:26 pm

having an oversized hosts file can increase DNS lookup times under windows NT - it's noticeable on a 1.6GHz atom n270 running XP SP3 (my cousin's netbook).

ymmv.

MajereDB8 · Post by **MajereDB8** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:27 pm

Yes, that's a perfectly safe method of blocking websites. It just redirects any request to a particular domain name to your loopback adapter. The downside to that method is administrative overhead if you have a lot of computers or a lot of sites to block.

If you can get things to work on your router, that's probably the preferred method. It's easier to administer, and allows you to add DNS filtering to additional computers with minimal effort

neo_bahamut1985 · Post by **neo_bahamut1985** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:55 pm

Already got rid of that stupid filter and I'm using the other method and everything is up an running. Thanks!

byuu · Post by **byuu** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:08 pm

odditude wrote:having an oversized hosts file can increase DNS lookup times under windows NT - it's noticeable on a 1.6GHz atom n270 running XP SP3 (my cousin's netbook).

ymmv.

Weird. Do they not use an O(log n) search algorithm for HOSTS or something?

The Atom is really peppy, too. It's on par with my Athlon 3500+.

Squall_Leonhart · Post by **Squall_Leonhart** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:33 pm

odditude wrote:having an oversized hosts file can increase DNS lookup times under windows NT - it's noticeable on a 1.6GHz atom n270 running XP SP3 (my cousin's netbook).

ymmv.

DNS Caching is useless anyway and leads to more problems then anything, which is why most people disable it.

host files above 300KB require you do so anyway.

Francis64 · Post by **Francis64** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:38 pm

Yes this is a perfectly safe way to block websites on the PC.
(A large HOSTS file is known to slow down the system in Windows 2000/XP, but this is resolved when you disable the DNS Client service.)

I discovered this method a few weeks ago (on machines running Windows 2000 and 98) and it works great.
Almost no ads, and faster browsing.

There are places where you can download ready-to-use HOSTS files already that block most known sites containing ads, malware, tracking cookies etc.

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
http://everythingisnt.com/hosts.html

funkyass · Post by **funkyass** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:03 am

all in all, if you are using a hosts file, wouldn't it be better to block said sites at the router if possible?

Squall_Leonhart · Post by **Squall_Leonhart** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:55 am

funkyass wrote:all in all, if you are using a hosts file, wouldn't it be better to block said sites at the router if possible?

No, routers rarely provide enough spaces to block these sites.

funkyass · Post by **funkyass** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:03 am

lets look at the other side of the coin: what sites does he want to block?

Post by **Nach** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:55 pm

byuu wrote:
odditude wrote:having an oversized hosts file can increase DNS lookup times under windows NT - it's noticeable on a 1.6GHz atom n270 running XP SP3 (my cousin's netbook).

ymmv.
Weird. Do they not use an O(log n) search algorithm for HOSTS or something?

In order to search it in log N time, they'd have to load up the HOSTS file, and then sort it in memory, or store it in a self sorting data structure.

If HOSTS was loaded up during boot up, this could be possible. Some web browsers (Konqueror) bypass whatever the OS does on the matter, and store their own DNS cache, which has quick access, and you need to shut down and restart the browser if you want it to relook at the HOSTS file.

It boils down to how often do you change it, would you want to require a reboot or a browser restart? Or do you want your browser/OS to constantly monitor for changes, and on each change made, reload the file?

Oh, and regarding blocking sites via it, it is possible to get Konqueror to completely ignore the hosts file, thus making such measures useless.

It seems that Konqueror unlike other browsers which ask the OS to do DNS lookup for it, Konqueror goes and talks to your DNS server directly, cutting your OS out. I'm just wondering if their is some "who is my closest DNS server" API I don't know about, or if it has the IP addresses to some DNS servers, and goes directly to them.