Rtep wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 27, 2019 12:32 pm
This is not the place to discus politics. BTW one of iblocklist is protecting me from US GOVERNMENT spying.I do not agree with you, but I'm respecting your thoughts.
I was merely stating a fact. You may choose to disagree with any fact you like
, including that one. But I do take your point, and - while facts
are not open to debate, it is still technically "political," in that it has something to do with government. So does Mint, lol, since it has parts of SELinux in it - but now I'm just reaching, lol. BUT
... If I wasn't trying to follow the spirit of the rules here, I might be asking how much protection stuff like that which is being discussed in this thread would offer from "the government" when "the government" - specifically, the United States National Security Agency (
) - created those kernel patches in the first place, and that particular agency is somewhat known for wanting back doors into other people's
creations, so it's a pretty safe bet that the people in it would be sure to insert one into THEIR OWN work. Which, all "politics" aside, reminds me of an old saying about how wise it isn't
to purchase your locks from a burglar
I'll go back to wondering why the "hosts" thing isn't sufficient for a "blocker" now.
I did (or think I did) see a comment that the hosts file only worked for "named" http addresses, like http://this_can_be_blocked.org but not ones that use IP address numbers (instead of going through a DNS). Is this a true thing, or did I misread? Because I was under the impression that if I added http://22.214.171.124
, that it would block communication with that server. But I admit that I am pretty ignorant about how the hosts thing actually works. It just seems to me that the hosts file should be acted on before
one's computer sends out a lookup request to a DNS, in which case it shouldn't matter which form the Internet address takes.
But, again, I cannot claim any great knowledge of the thing, so I could be incorrect in my assumption. IDK.
If the hosts file doesn't work that way, I should be installing some of those blacklists, too. But now I wonder who creates those lists, how/why are we supposed to trust those people, and why are we supposed to assume
that such lists are in any way "complete?" If they are not complete, doesn't that merely give one the false impression that one is secure? Better to have no blacklist and just depend on reasonable and healthy paranoia - to wit, lock one's system down and use a whitelist
of one's own creation, adding ONLY those addresses that the user knows(?!) is safe, as and when user feels that it is necessary to do so. IMHO.
The more I think about this stuff, the less safe I feel