Can't get to MICROSOFT.COM

[Jan Il]

www.micorsoft.com [64.235.246.143]
Oversee.net [64.235.246.x]

Hmmm...do you see something there when to cick on this? All I get when I
click on your link here is the same 'Page cannot be displayed' error. ??

Jan

Just a quick 'n dirty looksee. It leads to
landing .domainsponsor .com
with faked(?) search result and rather primitive "Search the
Web" box (don't see anything 'evil').

WAG: some domain name speculator(s).

BTW, "micors..." was not blackholed.

Well...just the idea that it is not spelled correctly leads me to think that
it is not any place I would want to go anyway. So, no worryies then.

Thank you for the heads up!

Jan

 

[Jan Il]

Jan Il wrote:
www.micorsoft.com [64.235.246.143]
Oversee.net [64.235.246.x]

Hmmm...do you see something there when to cick on this? All I get when I
click on your link here is the same 'Page cannot be displayed' error.

??

You can bypass both your HOSTS file *and* the DNS lookup by
typing in the number instead of the name in the browser's address
window.

...or click on http://64.235.246.143

I am *not* suggesting that anyone do this, because there must be
some reason not to (or else the suggested HOSTS file would not
have had that entry included). Perhaps better would be:

url:view-source:http://64.235.246.143

Ha HA! Ye olde electronic 'turn the street sign around the wrong way' ploy
;-))

Thanks for the insight. Stands to reason there was a reason why the file was
in the HOSTS as a part of the standard fare.

Jan

 

[FromTheRafters]

Jan Il wrote:

www.micorsoft.com [64.235.246.143]
Oversee.net [64.235.246.x]

Hmmm...do you see something there when to cick on this? All I get when I
click on your link here is the same 'Page cannot be displayed' error. ??

You can bypass both your HOSTS file *and* the DNS lookup by
typing in the number instead of the name in the browser's address
window.

...or click on http://64.235.246.143

I am *not* suggesting that anyone do this, because there must be
some reason not to (or else the suggested HOSTS file would not
have had that entry included). Perhaps better would be:

url:view-source:http://64.235.246.143

I'd delete that entry in the hosts file. There is no good reason for
that line. It's another way to hijack browsers.

That is exactly why it *is* there. The line sends your typo
error (micorsoft.com) to the bit bucket (127.0.0.1) and
prevents the access to the possibly nefarious site. It also
would do the same for clicked links that you misread as
being the real deal. My example above was to show a way
around both the HOSTS file and the DNS service.

Close your IE browser, open the hosts file, edit it, & save it, then re-
open your IE browser, & get your updates

The only HOSTS files I have are the original sample (.SAM)
files that came with the installation.

Now Go away! Go on - scoot! Shoo!

Mind if I skedaddle instead? :O)

 

[Jan Il]

Jan Il wrote:

www.micorsoft.com [64.235.246.143]
Oversee.net [64.235.246.x]

Hmmm...do you see something there when to cick on this? All I get when I
click on your link here is the same 'Page cannot be displayed' error.

??

You can bypass both your HOSTS file *and* the DNS lookup by
typing in the number instead of the name in the browser's address
window.

...or click on http://64.235.246.143

I am *not* suggesting that anyone do this, because there must be
some reason not to (or else the suggested HOSTS file would not
have had that entry included). Perhaps better would be:

url:view-source:http://64.235.246.143

I'd delete that entry in the hosts file. There is no good reason for
that line. It's another way to hijack browsers.
Close your IE browser, open the hosts file, edit it, & save it, then re-
open your IE browser, & get your updates

But..but...*I* did not put that in there that way. I just got the newest
update yesterday, before I posted the other reply, and it was already in
there as part of the standard list. That is why I posted the url to where I
got the HOSTS file update, as posted by Siljaline, an MS MVP, in the
alt.privacy.spyware newsgroup yesterday. So, why would anyone deliberately
put something in there that would hijack a browser?
Oh..Geese... )

Jan

 

[Jan Il]

[snip]

The only HOSTS files I have are the original sample (.SAM)
files that came with the installation.

Yes, and this why many people are confused when someone tells them how to
setup, modify, or add something their HOSTS file. I went through this
myself when I was trying to get mine set up, which was advised by some on
this ng to help resolve a problem some while back. But, because I did not
have anything but the .SAM file, I had to download a copy of the HOSTS
127.0.001 file from the web and install it before I could use the HOSTS
file. The only one that comes with the original installation, at least as
far as I know, is the .SAM file.

Jan

 

[FromTheRafters]

[snip]

The only HOSTS files I have are the original sample (.SAM)
files that came with the installation.

Yes, and this why many people are confused when someone tells them how to
setup, modify, or add something their HOSTS file. I went through this
myself when I was trying to get mine set up, which was advised by some on
this ng to help resolve a problem some while back.
Hijacker?

But, because I did not
have anything but the .SAM file, I had to download a copy of the HOSTS
127.0.001 file from the web and install it before I could use the HOSTS
file.

The "sample" files (hosts.sam and lmhosts.sam) could be used by
merely dropping the extension (.sam) from the name. You would
want to remove all of the comments though. You could then build
up all of the undesireable names to point to the loopback as you
create your own local IP# lookup table. If a dDoS attack against
DNS made it impossible to do lookups on either my primary or
seconday DNS servers (supplied by my ISP), then use of a hosts
file for that purpose would suffice. The hosts file is not *only* for
loopback or hijacking based on names, it can also be used for static
IP# lookups.

 

[Jan Il]

[snip]

The only HOSTS files I have are the original sample (.SAM)
files that came with the installation.

Yes, and this why many people are confused when someone tells them how to
setup, modify, or add something their HOSTS file. I went through this
myself when I was trying to get mine set up, which was advised by some on
this ng to help resolve a problem some while back.

Hijacker?

Can't remember...

The "sample" files (hosts.sam and lmhosts.sam) could be used by
merely dropping the extension (.sam) from the name. You would
want to remove all of the comments though. You could then build
up all of the undesireable names to point to the loopback as you
create your own local IP# lookup table. If a dDoS attack against
DNS made it impossible to do lookups on either my primary or
seconday DNS servers (supplied by my ISP), then use of a hosts
file for that purpose would suffice. The hosts file is not *only* for
loopback or hijacking based on names, it can also be used for static
IP# lookups.

An MVP's on the microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress ng
suggested downloading the HOSTS file from the
http://www.accs-net.com/hosts/, as it would have all the current updated
site information, and then I could add my own to it as needed. It is a bit
easier if you don't know how to do it from scratch, which, some of us don't
for the first time

The HOSTS is a very useful tool.

Jan