Solved Site blacklist

[looked]

Something strange in the HOSTS file, I think that the ip address has changed, now it shows 0.0.0.0 for that site!

 

[carwiz]

If you didn't change it, you might start running some malware scans. That 0.0.0.0 IP address will, in effect, negate it from your hosts file and allow the DNS server to re-assign it.

 

[UsernameIssues]

0.0.0.0 works fine - as does just about any other non-existent private IP address.

I put 0.0.0.0 into the HOSTS file that the OP is using. Download it from post 14 and have a look.

That HOSTS file uses
127.0.0.1 localhost
and
0.0.0.0 stuff.to.block.com

Here is a blurb about why things are headed in that direction:

Important Note: The HOSTS file now contains a change in the prefix in the HOSTS entries to "0.0.0.0" instead of the usual "127.0.0.1".
This was done to resolve a slowdown issue that occurs with the change Microsoft made in the "TCP loopback interface" in Win8.1.

I cannot link to the source of that info because the forum is set to remove a part of the link. Google it if you want to read more. Yes, 0.0.0.0 does cause issues with some software, but it works fine in the HOSTS file

 

[carwiz]

Thanks for the update but I don't see any reference to that in a "valid" MS site for Windows 7. That same quote shows up on just about every hacker's blog though.

It appears to be related to poorly written miniport drivers or drivers that are attempting to initiate back-door connections via the connection manager. A 127... will kill the message from the stack where a 0... will not. I'm not familiar enough with the problem you state with the TCP loopback interface so I'll defer on that. Perhaps you could expand on that a little more?

For the time being, I'll keep my 127..... entries.

 

[UsernameIssues]

I got that from mvps website.

You can also look at this feature in HostsMan:


I wrote a script to download/modify/use the HOSTS file offered by the mvps website and I've had no trouble using 0.0.0.0. There is still a 127 entry for the localhost line, but for the blocked hosts lines, 0.0.0.0 works fine.

For the most part, isn't the goal to use the HOSTS file to pass an IP to the app that will not lead to anywhere? An IP that will not send info to the app. There does not seem to be any performance issues using 0.0.0.0 on a W7 box.

 

[looked]

I got that from mvps website.

You can also look at this feature in HostsMan:
View attachment 339574

I wrote a script to download/modify/use the HOSTS file offered by the mvps website and I've had no trouble using 0.0.0.0. There is still a 127 entry for the localhost line, but for the blocked hosts lines, 0.0.0.0 works fine.

For the most part, isn't the goal to use the HOSTS file to pass an IP to the app that will not lead to anywhere? An IP that will not sent info to the app. There does not seem to be any performance issues using 0.0.0.0 on a W7 box.

Still not clear for me.
So for example I want to block Skype update 127.0.0.1 ui.skype.com, does 0.0.0.0 ui.skype.com do the trick?

 

[UsernameIssues]

You can use 127.0.0.1 or you can use 0.0.0.0. It does not matter.

You can use 10.10.10.10 if you want.

You can use almost any Private IP address.

 

[looked]

You can use 127.0.0.1 or you can use 0.0.0.0. It does not matter.

You can use 10.10.10.10 if you want.

You can use almost any Private IP address.

Thanks very much for high valuable help.
I found the HOSTS file at mvps and I'll use it.
In my opinion Microsoft should employ such simple trick and implement it in any operative systems, after all they charge more $$$ if you want a professional or ultimate version of their OSs so at least they will do it for a real technical reason.