31–40 of 97 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is actually sent to the IP address 0.0.0.0, it roughly means that all the traffic of the listed hosts is routed back to localhost
0.0.0.0 ≠ localhost
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is actually sent to the IP address 0.0.0.0, it roughly means that all the traffic of the listed hosts is routed back to localhost
In this context, it actually means a "non-routable meta-address used to designate an invalid, unknown, or non-applicable target" [1] - 127.0.0.1 is localhost, 0.0.0.0 is its own thing. [1]: https://www.howtogeek.com/225487/what-is-the-difference-betw...
your link was to an informative but still sloppily written article and in this context, your summary of the article isn't clarifying.
to write clearly, people gotta stop throwing around the word localhost because at the level of n.n.n.n there are no names, only numerical addresses and localhost is a name, one defined in a text file: 127.0.0.1 points to, not localhost, but to the local host, always; localhost (the name) points to 127.0.0.1 iff it is defined to (which should be all the time).
what I learned from the article is that a local host server listening on 0.0.0.0 will listen to everthing it can hear. But the question context here is, where will a packet sent to 0.0.0.0 go?
The point that 0.0.0.0 is not routable does not answer the question because 127.0.0.1 is also not routable; however, 127.0.0.1 will arrive someplace, at the local host. The question is whether 0.0.0.0 will also arrive into "the pool o' packets", that place that packets arrive on the local host prior to their disposition being determined (a. routed out of the local tcp/ip pool o' packets, b. listened to within the local tcp/ip pool o' packets, or c. dropped on the floor) because routing isn't only what Routers do, it's what tcp/ip does within a local host. (and btw, the article also describes that 0.0.0.0 means the default routing of last resort address in the context of a route address, also not the same as a packet destination address)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goal here is to make it automatically update the hosts file once in a while
If I considered constructing a botnet of Linux workstations, your software would be an excellent candidate.
Anybody have a sense of the performance overhead of using hosts files versus a detached hardware solution like a pihole?
My understanding is that difference is in scope, not performance. Hosts files will only affect the host (workstation/desktop/laptop etc) they're installed on. Things like piHole try to make it easy to apply the solution to all members of your network - which even in household cases these days can number in dozens, making it impractical to manage hosts files for all of them (This includes items like phones which are t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goal here is to make it automatically update the hosts file once in a while
Isn’t that what cron is for?
I’m just guessing, but it might be easier to programmatically install a systemd cron job (and making sure it runs) than doing so for the old/conventional crond?
Anybody have a sense of the performance overhead of using hosts files versus a detached hardware solution like a pihole?
Then I removed the hosts file, and it worked instantly.
Maybe for a static workstation it wouldn't be bad, but for a laptop or something that loses link frequently, it could be an issue.
Serious question. We all realize that the economics of the internet is largely fueled by ads, so why are we so keen to block them? It’s ad revenue that have allowed technology to flourish so strongly over the last two decades.
Serious question. We all realize that the economics of the internet is largely fueled by ads, so why are we so keen to block them? It’s ad revenue that have allowed technology to flourish so strongly over the last two decades.
I side with the adblock solutions in this war.