1. What is so bad about python in specific?
2. If you worry about root privileges, required for modifying the host file, you can use app armor to put the thing on a leash
Modifying system hosts configuration requires privileged file system access.
The mindset here should be default deny.
The list of hosts to exclude comes from several sites here: https://github.com/anned20/begoneads/blob/2c90fcee221edf71f8...
The actual application of the hosts file is here: https://github.com/anned20/begoneads/blob/2c90fcee221edf71f8...
I missed something though. Is a simple domain name per line enough to send that content to /dev/null? I haven’t used that form in /etc/hosts.
My primary concern was that this technique could be used to send ad traffic to a site that returns 404 but gathers metrics on the web regardless.
To be honest, this code is over-engineered. It could be a single script with a handful of functions. At the same time, it’s missing functionality such as deduplicating entries from the different lists.
[1]: https://www.howtogeek.com/225487/what-is-the-difference-betw...
If the goal of the project is actual adoption, a native executable without external dependencies would have been a much better option.
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 typically unfeasible to mess with hosts file).
62,448 line (63,370 actual '0.0.0.0' entries) /etc/hosts file, 100x resolving 'www.google.com', Debian GNU/Linux, Thinkpad with spinning rust.
The short version has 32 lines, with 14 active entries, mostly defaults and local systems.
Short hosts:
$ for i in {1..100}; do time host www.google.com; done 2>&1| grep real | sed 's/^real[ ]*//; s/0m//; s/s$//' | mean
n: 100, sum: 2.209, min: 0.015, max: 0.052, mean: 0.022090, median: 0.02, sd: 0.007450
%-ile: 5: 0.016, 10: 0.016, 15: 0.016, 20: 0.016,
25: 0.0165, 30: 0.02, 35: 0.02, 40: 0.02, 45: 0.02,
55: 0.02, 60: 0.02, 65: 0.02, 70: 0.021, 75: 0.022,
80: 0.0245, 85: 0.029, 90: 0.033, 95: 0.0385
$ for i in {1..100}; do time host www.google.com; done 2>&1| grep real | sed 's/^real[ ]*//; s/0m//; s/s$//' | mean
n: 100, sum: 2.517, min: 0.016, max: 0.063, mean: 0.025170, median: 0.023, sd: 0.009818
%-ile: 5: 0.016, 10: 0.016, 15: 0.016, 20: 0.016,
25: 0.017, 30: 0.0185, 35: 0.02, 40: 0.021, 45: 0.022,
55: 0.024, 60: 0.0255, 65: 0.0265, 70: 0.028, 75: 0.029,
80: 0.03, 85: 0.0325, 90: 0.0395, 95: 0.042
("mean" is an awk script for computing univariate moments.)
As others have mentioned, the main benefit of a centralised LAN service is that all devices on the LAN are protected. The hosts file on this system (a laptop) is effective regardless of where I am. It also pre-dates my configuring OpenWRT's adblock package about a month ago, though I'd had a hand-rolled DNSMasq configuration earlier. The laptop hosts file is almost certainly a few years out of date -- another occupational hazard of such things.
The OpenWRT solution runs on the Knot Resolver (kresd) caching nameserver. I've not noted any lag for it. The blocklist there is currently 231,627 hosts/domains (roughly doubled: specific + wildcard matches), from 0-29.com to zzzpooeaz-france.com.
Another experience I had was that certain sites failed to work correctly. I didn’t do extensive testing but when I disabled the hosts nocking the sites worked, when I enabled it they broke. These were companies with whom I was trying to do account related business: so it wasn’t just that something didn’t render correctly it actively prevented me from updating my accounts when I tried to submit requests.
I still like the approach and will continue to use it, but it hasn’t been frictionless.
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.
Browsers cache and use outside DNS servers despite the hosts files. Chrome and sometimes Safari don't really honor the hosts files 100% of the time. Every once in a while I google around to try and restore my control, try to tweak my browser settings but I have yet to find anything that makes using hosts files bulletproof.
It’s a ridiculous comparison. I am not a friend to intrusive ad-tech, but making a moral equivalence to slavery is to trivialize slavery. It’s like comparing parking tickets to the death penalty.
I side with the adblock solutions in this war.
</2 cents>
I'm glad Firefox is now blocking third-party trackers by default (not that I needed it for myself, but it's important for others to have this).
Does anyone know an up-to date list for blocking social networks?
Here's another one to toss on the pile (works, I use it, supports wildcards, *nix only): https://github.com/jakeogh/dnsgate