Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile


Whats a good alternative other than PG2 ?until this is working

Posted by Anonymous User 
Anonymous User
Whats a good alternative other than PG2 ?until this is working
October 31, 2009 01:29AM
seriously i need a quick fix until this works on my system,PG2 only works about half the time. Hang in there guys youll figure it out eventually.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2009 01:42AM by pliskin.
Re: Whats a good alternative other than PG2 ?until this is working
October 31, 2009 03:18AM
Hi pliskin,

I've never had any serious problems with PB, but i'm assuming you've tried to get PB working before looking for an alternative.

The only other options i know of are:
  • Protowall - [www.bluetack.co.uk]
  • Windows Hosts File - [en.wikipedia.org]

  • I'm not sure how up to date Protowall is (and it's closed source sad smiley ), AND i've never used it, however it's made by bluetack, who i find are very reliable when it comes to their lists, so hopefully their software is the same.
    Windows hosts file does not block IP's but instead domain names, but hopefully this is better than nothing. without a progam to edit this file it can be quite awkward as each domain must be listed manually. i'm assuming there is software that can be found in google to edit it. windows hosts file WILL NEVER FAIL: because it is so deep into your OS it is (highly unlikely) to ever fail. PeerBlock and all other IP blockers are more susceptable to failures, but these are getting more and more stable.

    I hope i've answered your question, feel free to ask any further questions!

Re: Whats a good alternative other than PG2 ?until this is working
October 31, 2009 06:20AM
You may also try if our 1.0 release.
pliskin , the latest PB beta is 202 , please see my post on your other topic about "PB not blocking" .
hoodadilly - You mention that the Hosts File is unlikely to fail. Are their other advantages or disadvantages of using the Hosts File versus using PeerBlock? What are the merits of blocking Domain Names (as the Hosts File does) versus blocking IPs (as PeerBlock does). Are there reasons to use PeerBlock instead of just using the Hosts File?

Incidentally, as you guess there are programs to edit the Hosts File, and also standard lists to put into it.

Thanks. -- redmaledeer
Re: Whats a good alternative other than PG2 ?until this is working
November 09, 2009 05:15PM
One big disadvantage is that whenever you make changes to hosts, you have to reboot for anything to actually happen. No way to "allow for 15 minutes" or anything like that. If you want that, you have to remove something from hosts, reboot, do whatever you wanted to do and then re-add it to the hosts and reboot again. I prefer PeerBlock.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2009 05:15PM by Keefa.
Re: Whats a good alternative other than PG2 ?until this is working
November 10, 2009 01:25AM
Hi redmaledeer, Welcome to the forums!

As Keefa said, the host file takes ages to change, but unfortunately there are other issues.

The hosts file only blocks domain names (such as google.com or peerblock.com), but does not block IPs.

it also only blocks outgoing connections, not incoming connections (ie from a hacker etc).

if, for example, a malicious peice of software were to find it's way on to you computer, there are two things it could do to get around this hosts file to access the internet:
  • it could modify the hosts file to allow access to sites you block that it wishes to access - using third party tools reduces this problem as they are far less likely to havemalicious software written to disable them as they are significantly less popular than windows itself!
  • It could simply try to access a specific IP rather than a domain name - only third party tools can block IPs

now to the good side of the hosts file: winking smiley

it is set very deep within windows, and as such it cannot fail (ie become unresponsive) - if windows itself becomes unresponsive then no connections will be made, and as such this won't be a problem.

third party blocking programs, like PeerBlock, can become unresponsive, whilst windows still allows network access. With the old PeerGuardian 2 this was a problem, but i have only ever once seen PeerBlock fail, and that was using an internal testing release, not the "stable" release.

To sum up: i would be happy to use the hosts file to block access from a non-technical computer user to a website, for example blocking access from facebook.com from your kids. P2P software, such as torrents, gnutella etc mostly use IPs to connect to other users, and as such it does not help with that.

I would not suggest using the hosts file for security purposes, only to stop non-critical access to websites.


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2009 01:33AM by hoodadilly.
Thanks hoodadilly and Keefa.

It sounds as if it couldn't hurt to use both PeerBlock and the Hosts File. The Hosts File would mainly be a fallback and provide some protection if PeerBlock failed. Tho in the case of the Hosts File one shouldn't block sites that one might want to visit occaisonally. Maybe that's being overly compulsive.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login