Talk:Spyware/Archive 1

message: Obviously, we all know what the best software is, but is it worth writing something objective about antispyware solutions and linking to a number of reviews?  Could be helpful... Elliott C. Bäck 05:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: User:Mike5906 - I would recommend the addition of http://www.my-pc-help.com/video/v10017.htm which is a free video called Defeating Spyware.  It discusses many of the topics here.
:I visited this site and found 
 To complete your subscription, please choose from one of the following options.
  1 month = $10
  6 months = $40 [ save 33%! ]
  12 months = $75 [ save 42% - our most popular plan! ]
  LIFETIME = $199 [never pay for Premium again!] - w/ Free DVD!
--CliffC 23:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: my-pc-help.com

message: Topics:
 What is spyware?
 How does spyware get on your computer?
 Who makes spyware and why is it on my computer?
 How do I fix it? spyware removal
 Can I uninstall just the spyware?
 What legal obligations might I have if I uninstall spyware?
 Spyware in the news
 How do I prevent it?
 Where can spyware hide?
 Why is it not in add/remove programs?
 Can I just delete files I think are spyware? (gasp, dirty winsocks in my system32 folder!)
 Why is it hard to remove?
 Why does it make my computer unstable?
 Why doesn't my antivirus program prevent it?
 Why doesn't my firewall stop it?
 But I download games, play mp3's, get cheat codes, download cracks, and visit all the COOL sites!
The above is an excellent list of topics. But their coverage is totally inadequate. For example it is important to discuss the intent of the spyware which could be very malicious to damage the computers of total strangers  or to erase the files contained in them through introduction of executable files or to profit from the information by interrupting the computer sessions of their owners with the ads of the clients of the spyware or of the clients of the spywares themselves. These interruptions of the sessions of the computer owners are called Pop-ups. Obviously malicious spying would include intents of identity thefts or of sexual fulfillments. 
The list of the makers of the spyware is totally inadequate. It should include all the companies included in another section of Wikipedia under Technology -Computers - Adserving. Inspite of the denials of those companies they listed as Adwares all over the internet search engine listing. It does not do Wikipedia creditability any good to believe in  the denials of those companies  including Zedo.
The spyware software is designed so that it gets  installed by remote control immediately upon being deleted. The spywares have a list of the IP Addresses and after it gets the IP Addresses it will never let go of the hold it has on the computers. 
Brendan discussed below what can happen if the spyware is removed. This is because many of the spyware removal programs themselves are adwares and they leave their own marks when they remove the known spyware. The dedicated spyware programs such as Lavasoft (Ad-aware SE) did not exist when the list of spyware removal was prepared. Spyware Nuker itself is an adware. It instals itself on to the computers without their permission.
You'll have to be very persistent to removal some spywares like Zedo and look2Me if you want them out of your system. I run Lavasoft on my computers every two or three days and find them back every time.
The above points must be discussed in the spyware section and in Ad serving section of WIKIPEDIA. ----fakir005 14:22, 14 November, 2006 (UTC) 
I've seen documented issues ad-aware, and spybot destroy internet connectivity to the point, where a normal ISP can only send them to their OEM for help.  It's a good idea to stress what should happen, and what can happen.
:Ad-Aware and Spybot used to destroy LSP files when certain spyware was removed.  For the most part I think the issues have been removed. If not, the program LSPFix can usually take care of the problem.  Maybe something about LSPFix can be added to the article?
Brendan 16:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, you got screwed.  Lots of free software doesn't have spyware.  See the article Open Source.  And you paid for a scam when you bought Kazaa Lite, that program is free.
Brendan 16:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topics 

message: Hi, Ferkelparade. About your contrib "Revision as of 11:31, 14 Feb 2005 rv rather incoherent POV".
This is not nearly enough a justification. What is incoherent ? And what is POV ? You have to do your homework befor revert. Note as well a POV section is seldom to be deleted but rewriten.
Now about the actual content of my contrib here. The point in spyware is mostly human factor. Who will deny that ? And the most efficient solution is... human factor. Educate, understand, think: and off the spyware! Correct or not?
I think you may have rved hastily because of anon. Nontheless, there is a point here. If it's POV: rewrite as you think best. Beyond your freedom, that's your duty.
Bye bye
Anon - 213.190.129.19 09:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About section: A solution 

message: Although Enigma's software is no longer classified as "rogue/suspect" (Spyware Warrior - Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware) it is still not recommended as a solution.  To quote, "Given the many excellent competing anti-spyware applications that are available (some for free), users would do better looking elsewhere for trustworthy anti-spyware protection."  From personal experience and testing of their products, I would have to agree.
--Kyrin\talk 17:55, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Have you tried Adware Alert
http://sahosted.com/spyware/index.html
:It's on the Rogue Antispyware list. RainR 02:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Enigma's Links under "Prevention" heading 

message: Let's not move references (especially ones that are cited) to the Research section. We only need one References section, after all, and moving them around makes for a confusing and unorganized article. -- LGagnon 01:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Someone has been adding references with citations links but the citation goes nowhere within the article (specifically, Hardmeier, Sandi, Healan, Mike, and Stevenson, Larry). Can someone actually cite these references properly? Also, can we add citations for references that were added without them? -- LGagnon 01:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't sure where to put this, but I'd have to take issue with the following sentence: "When Microsoft Windows users seek technical support — whether from computer manufacturers, Internet service providers, or other sources, spyware infection emerges as the most common cause. [citation needed]" I have no citation to prove otherwise, but I work at Road Runner's National Help Desk, and at most 5% of the calls I get are spyware related. Just asking the 10 or so people around me, they range from 2%-3% up to 10%. -Jordan 3:25, June 06, 2006 UTC
:*I was going to move the said sentence below until a reliable citation could be provided, although looking at the context of it in the paragraph, the whole paragraph could do with a revision. 
When Microsoft Windows users seek technical support — whether from computer manufacturers, Internet service providers, or other sources, spyware infection emerges as the most common cause.  In many cases, the user has no awareness of spyware and assumes that the system performance, stability, and/or connectivity issues relate to hardware, to Microsoft Windows installation problems, or to a virus. Some owners of badly infected systems resort to buying an entire new computer system because the existing system "has become too slow."  Badly infected systems may require a clean reinstall of all their software in order to restore the system to working order. This can become a time-consuming task, even for experienced users.
:*In my experience, spyware is one of the reasons for computer slowdown and a contributing factor to computer problems on computers that don't have sufficient protection - firewall, antivirus (with updated definition files), antispyware (non-rogue with updated definition files), etc. - although other reasons such as computer viruses, trojans, incorrectly configured internet connections, problems with routers, fragmentation, failing hardware such as hard-disks, driver conflicts (and things that might be fixed by updating motherboard, graphics, sound card, and other hardware drivers), problems with software not installing/uninstalling correctly - examples I can think of are ZoneAlarm (internet connection problems after uninstalling) and Norton AntiVirus (see SymNRT) - as well as other problems which I can't think of off the top of my head. I don't see a problem with the last 2 sentences of the paragraph Badly infected systems may require a clean reinstall of all their software in order to restore the system to working order. This can become a time-consuming task, even for experienced users. as that is something I sometimes have to do with systems that are too infected - not just by spyware, but with rootkits, trojans, adware, viruses, and the like. TheJC TalkContributions 05:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: **I've been bold and removed the unreferenced sentence, as well as rephrased some of the paragraph (differences). TheJC TalkContributions 05:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References and Research

message: Subject: Wikipedia article on Spyware
Mr. Edelman --
I and a number of other folks have been working recently on the article
"Spyware" for Wikipedia, the open-source encyclopedia.  Your Web site
and your research have been massively useful in researching this 
subject -- particularly with regard to the disparity between the
"consent" that spyware makers claim, and the fact of their installation
of spyware by way of drive-by download.
Recently, I've been looking for images to illustrate the article -- most
particularly, screenshots of computers infested with spyware.  Wikipedia
requires that images be freely redistributable -- so I'm wondering if
you would be willing to permit us to use and redistribute some of the
screenshots from your Web site?
The article we're working on is here:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyware
Naturally, we would love it if you, as a researcher in the field, had 
any suggestions or improvements to make on this article.
Thank you for your consideration!
(signature)
--FOo 00:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text of my e-mail to Ben Edelman 

message: The ones currently listed are worthy of mention, but there are others which I feel ought to be included.  I know WP is not a link farm, but this is an article on Spyware.--Paul Laudanski 19:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spyware Cleaners 

message: Can anyone verify that there have been reports of spyware for Linux, Mac OS X, or any other non-Windows platform? The sentence about it seems quite suspect to me, and I think it should be changed back to stating that no spyware has been found on those platforms if no proof can be given. -- LGagnon 14:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
:As a security technician who uses Linux and Mac OS X every day and provides security support for Windows users, I can confirm that I've never seen any Linux or Mac OS X spyware ... and I've looked, extensively. There have been no credible reports of it. There have been a couple of firms who have tried to sell "anti-spyware" software for OS X ... which software doesn't appear to do anything, but they promise it will protect you from spyware. (And I'll sell you an amulet that protects you from ghosts. Nobody wearing one has ever been eaten by a ghost.)
:If anyone has any actual, cite-able sources showing spyware on Linux, OS X, or any other non-Windows system, I sincerely invite them to contribute them. However, in the absence of sources (and in the presence of so very many sources showing spyware for Windows) there is no justification for claiming that any spyware exists for other systems.
:I'll make the following caveat: There are certainly backdoors, exploits, and other security threats for non-Windows systems. There are keyloggers, trojaned copies of executables, and the like. However, we would not class these as "spyware" for the same reason that we don't subsume Windows viruses into "spyware" -- they are more descriptively placed in these other caregories. --FOo 15:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to be bold and deleted the sentence in question.  Give a citation if you want to bring it back. 71.93.195.55 07:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Windows spyware

message: Huh. So folks think this is a feature-quality article. Great, spiffy, shiny, and all that jazz. There are still some things to do here. The following is a shot at a "to-do" list and a list of recurring problems that have cropped up in the editing of this article. Everyone, please feel free to add to it. :) --FOo 03:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, featured article. Now what? 

message: I'm having trouble finding a source that this had spyware - can someone find one and add it? --SPUI (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Elf Bowling]]

message: Why does this article have a byline at the top? I thought that was against Wikipedia policy? I am removing it right now; if I'm in error and this is within the bounds of accepted policy, I apologize.
JustinStroud 16:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's vandalism. Wikipedia policy forbids signing article content. Usually, people who scrawl their names on articles have nothing to do with the actual authors of the articles. Whenever you see someone's name "signed" on an article (not a talk comment), feel free to remove it ... and to check the article history for other vandalism. Thanks! --FOo 23:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Byline? 

message: this fools are annoying me! all this damn hackers, got no damn life.
:ANy one of you seen Saw 1 or 2, i wish Jigsaw, make them commit sucide AKA die themselves.
I got this fool spyware, lurking on my pc
*I came home yesterday, found cal open, using the pc, later went for a drink, came back and th cheap crap pc shutdown
*later on msn, me chatting, the mouse moved over a few steps, and "Run"opend, and the keyboard itself typed, a shorcut to run Pain (microsoft Paint)
*and that fool drew, a star mark, AKA Satan's mark, you know that Star, but turned upside down.
*It happened twice i though it was a computer program, there was a program running, the thing pop up saying "I have been infected", comes on the task panel, above
*went i was going sleep, i hear a sound, and it means that fool must have opened one of my folders
*TOday me going school, the damn calculator was opened again
:THIS FOOL MUST DIE!!!!!!!!
:how do i delete this fool from my pc?
>x<ino 09:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try asking for help at Spywarewarrior forums. Reyk 23:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fools AKA Geeks and Nerds 

message: The following paragraph was in the article itelf, where it doesn't belong. It's a good piece of advice, so I'm leaving it here:
* 
Reyk 22:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a comment left in the article text so that it would be seen by editors of that particular section. It does not affect the article as displayed to readers. --FOo 03:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's odd, cos I could see it in the article proper. Reyk 07:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm guessing that was part of whatever breakage also mangled several HTML character entities, e.g. changing "—" into "—". --FOo 09:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Style guideline

message: I'm not going to add the MacScan link back myself, because we don't seem to be trying to list every spyware scanner. But there is a list available of spyware detected by MacScan.  --RainR 11:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MacScan 

message: So does the government have any plans to ban spyware? There were talks about it back in 2004; but nothing has happened as of yet. 24.23.51.27 05:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you search news websites for this.--Andeh 12:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ban Spyware ? 

message: Okay, why is the External Links reverted back?  I specifically changed it so it wouldnt be filled with sites that were not necessary for being a link.  You dont need that many sites. Especially when you have 2 links to web directorys.  Give me a break.  The Links need to be scalred down and only put to CREDIBLE sites that ADD to the information given, not simply to put because it talks about spyware.  I work too hard on WP to get rid of External Link Sections that look like this one to have all this work reverted because the editor has a hang up.
--Ownlyanangel 09:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links and Spam 

message: "More malicious versions can try to record what a user types to try to intercept passwords or credit card numbers."
This link seems to be not related to spayware. Pérez 16:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: record what a user types 

message: Given the general fear of spam links on this page, I thought I discuss this before adding.
First off I'm not associated with antispyware in anyway.
Why add Super antispyware?
* It has being recently listed on the very well known Spyware warrior site as a trusted program. Incidentally, all the other entries on that list (except pest patrol which is well known for generating false positives) are already on our article.
 
* It has a fully functional freeware version
* It is fairly popular for a new program. Wilders forum search shows 847 posts admitted this is nothing compared to ad-aware (due to the history of the product), but not too bad.
I'm not dead set on adding it, but in my admittedly anecdotal experience, super antispyware can often remove spyware that is resist to windows defender, ad-aware and spybot and hence can be a helpful addition to the arsenal. Aarontay 04:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding super antispyware to list of antispyware

message: Would it be a good idea to create a section on the use of other security products (besides Antispyware) as a preventative method?
I'm talking about sandboxing (including full virtualization given the recent interest on Vmware and Virtual PC) and what some call behavior blockers while others call IDS or IDP or more commonly HIPS now that they run on the host systems  [
http://netsecurity.about.com/cs/firewallbooks/a/aa050804.htm]. Besides discussing the pros and cons (with references of course), I would add a limited number of examples of such products many well known (by standards of these products which are obviously nowhere as popular as antiviruses) as examples. some will be freeware others not. 
I notice that Winpatrol which is kind of like a behavior blocker is already mentioned, though it seems a bit out of place in an article that mentions 100% antispyware programs (of which winpatrol isn't).
Also the spywall guys might get their chance to be entered, if such a section is created... :)
Or should I just create or link to existing wikipedia articles on these 2 subjects?
Aarontay 04:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding other classes of security products as remedies 

message: From the article...
: As a result of his analysis in 2000, Gibson released the first anti-spyware program, OptOut, and many more software-based antidotes have appeared since then. International Charter now offers software developers a Spyware-Free Certification program."Spyware Certification". International Charter. Retrieved July 10, 2005.
Eeeeeehhhhh.... what the heck? I'm removing the International Charter bit; it's importance is weak in this article and quite inappropriate in this part of the article anyway. If anyone can say this certification is really really really really important,  it should probably be integrated better to the article, but right now it comes across as spam... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out-of-the-blue certification stuff... 

message: How did this get approved as an FA, much less allowed on the Main Page, with a big fat blue  on one section? Daniel Case 03:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same thing, also there are a LOT of red links. James086 Talk | Contribs 03:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the spam tag. Granted, that'd be relatively easy to remove, but still. Crystallina 04:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know either, but it's an shameful embarassment to Wikipedia to have this on the front page.  There are a number of factual errors in the article, lots of overlinking, spelling errors, direct external links where internal ones would suffice, a mix of British & American spelling, and the references section is a mishmash of different styles; lots of missing information from those references, too.   -/- Warren 05:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this article could be improved if we split it into several parts on its own. Each subsection alone is longer than most wikipedia articles. Smaller chunks are also easier to work with and helps though of us patrolling only certain sections. It's also much more manageable, right now it's like everyone who fancies himself an expert on computer security is descending down on this generic article. Not to mention the spammers. Aarontay 13:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Then you ought to consider whether it should still be an FA. Daniel Case 15:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. This article is a mess. Aarontay 13:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it used to be good, and is now a mess, rather than remove it from the FA list, can't we just revert it back to when it was good? Skittle 16:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was approved in mid-2005. We cannot simply revert it to that edit as there has been new and relevant information added since then. We need to work with what's here. Daniel Case 19:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced? 

message: I have recommended the Wikipedia website to my students, who are aged 16-19, for research purposes, however they have struggled to understand some of the articles.  This is mainly due to the complexity of the language used.  The readability score of the article is 12.99, which is the years of education needed to be able to understand this article on first reading, thus rendering it accessible only to those who have had a university education.  The article could be improved by reducing the length of the sentences, reducing the length of the paragraphs and replacing difficult words with more commonly used ones which would make the article more accessible to a wider and perhaps younger audience.  Would any of the editors be prepared to review the article to make it easier to read and thus more accessible to more users?  Sarahhcfe 14:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a special version of wikipedia written for those whose grasp of english is shaky. The articles are much easier to read, relying on simple vocabulary and grammatical constructs. Go to "simple.wikipedia.org". yandman 17:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure you understand what she meant. Having begun a serious round of proofing and copyediting a hard-copy of this last night, I see she has a point. It is tortously written, belaboring many of its points, explaining far too much and wordier than it needs to be. It may have assessed at college level, but it reads like a tenth-grade paper (and a firm C one at that). Daniel Case 14:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability of Article 

message: I think the Weatherbug should be removed from the list of having spyware list because it the program is certified by TestPros    Red1530 15:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, mate!  Any bug has to be treated as bad thing in the computer business! 201.19.180.73 16:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weatherbug is the name of the program and according to TestPros it's not spyware.  Check the site for yourself.  Red1530 17:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to post a link to TestPros' page explaining the tests they made with Weatherbug. 201.19.195.27 04:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the link right here and also the page on the Weatherbug site Red1530 18:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Weatherbug is NOT spyware -> Take notice that Spyware Guide lists 3 similar weather software and you don't find WeatherBug among them.  For those among you that don't know yet, "Spyware Guide" is the most respected company in malware related stuff.  It seems that a lot of people is interested to see WeatherBug's name tarnished, and most probably the troubles imputed to it were not caused by WeatherBug, but by the 3 malware listed in Spyware Guide.  Thanks. 201.19.188.39 20:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the Weatherbug From Spyware List 

message: why tagged as lacking sources?  Looks well referenced to me... --24.216.66.133 20:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lacking sources? 

message: I know this sounds like a non NPOV argument, but what about actual computer science arguments being included? Examples such as permissions systems (restricting privileges to what you need). Running only trusted software, MD5 style key verification, safe package repositories, disabling unnecessary features in trusted software etc. This fails to be mentioned in the article and as such i find this article misleading.
Perhaps mentioning that this (and here i am walking into dangerous rant territory) "need" for home software users to install software without verification of its integrity. Mentioning that the majority of non-MS operating systems, especially those that have safe package repositories, don't suffer from spyware to anyware the extent of MS platforms. 
This seems like a considerable oversight, but apologies for the tone of my comments, i just feel that this should be included somewhere, to make people aware that spyware is not just a natural phenomena of computing, but rather  a product of careless execution of non trustworthy (either due to bugs, overly aggressive code or due to malicious intent). This article seems a little "mainstream popularist" in that regard, with insufficient encyclopedic analysis. 129.78.208.4 22:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security precautions 

message: How can this be a featured article when it has this tag "This section does not cite its references or sources" on it? --MNAdam 23:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very strange, isn't it? Not only "featured article", but "featured aticle of the day". Methinks Raul's computer must have been infected one day... yandman 09:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article 

message: I have taken advantage of the US holiday to sit down and implement many of the corrections I had scawled in red pen across my printout, and then some. I shaved off about 5K from the article in text edits alone ... a sign of serious bloat. I got rid of the entire two grafs musing about how spyware EULAs might be unenforceable because it was pure speculation. I trimmed the cutlines. I got rid of many instances of information needlessly restated and the pedantic passages explaining concepts best left to the articles on them.
And still, I think it should be reviewed. There are even more sentences flagged as unsourced than before. We also have an NPOV section ... I've contacted the original tagger to explain what he meant (probably some dispute over whether the software in that section can objectively be likened to spyware).
I will see what changes get made by Sunday (two weeks from the main page). Daniel Case 02:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanksgiving copyedit

message: Does anyone think it is a good idea to split the article into small more manageable chunks? The remedies and presentation can be a completely new article for instance. Particularly the listing of security software. Aarontay 06:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could definitely spin off some lists here. Daniel Case 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good idea to split into smaller articles? 

message: I recently had a lot od problems after downnloading Bearshare, a Peer2peer file sharing programme.  A couple of people told me that this is because it comes bundled with spyware.  Sure enough, a cleaner I use always wanted to remove Zango, which was part of Bearshare, and Kazaa, which also seemed to be.  Can anyone verify this or provide links?  If so, should be added.  raining_girl 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable programs distributed with spyware 

message: Just a comment about this paragraph:
:"Some users install a large hosts file which prevents the user's computer from connecting to known spyware related web addresses. However, by connecting to the numeric IP address, rather than the domain name, spyware may bypass this sort of protection."
The HOSTS file is a tool that can replace or override DNS resolution.  This means that when a computer looks up an internet name (such as "www.spywareInstallerSite.com") the machine looks in the HOSTS file before it requests an IP address lookup from the DNS server.  In this case if the web address had been added to the HOSTS file with a dummy IP address the computer would be unable to locate the server and the request for the site would fail.  It does not matter if the site changed its IP address once per day, it would never resolve to anything but the dummy IP address set in the HOSTS file on that computer.  
This can be verified by adding the following entry to your HOSTS file (on XP "C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc\HOSTS"):
:1.2.3.4 www.google.com
Save as "HOSTS" not as a text file (by default Notepad.exe will want to save it as a text file)
Now try to browse to or ping "www.google.com"  You will find that this site is now dead, it cannot be reached.  It does not matter what IP address is actually associated with the site, you will not resolve to any address other than 1.2.3.4, which is not google. (now remove the entry from your HOSTS file).Cliffordwagner 13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point. Type in the ip address of the site directly, and it skips the DNS step and it works regardless of your hosts file! (even if you set the blocked site to 127.0.0.1) It is theortically possible for spyware to be hardcoded with ip addresses so it will not go through Domain name resolution step at all. I grant you that this is possible quite rare.218.186.9.3 02:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Roughly correct (though the read-only thing is of limited use), but irrelevant to the point you are making. 218.186.9.3 02:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOSTS File doesn't work that way 

message: Substituted at 15:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment