Re: Belkin router parental control feature no longer works

In comp.security.firewalls John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <43898715$0$69024$dbd4b001@news.wanadoo.nl> on 27 Nov 2005 10:14:45 GMT,
> jKILLSPAM.schipper@math.uu.nl wrote:
>
>>While dejablues may have been a little more expressive than necessary,
>>it *is* the general consensus here that content filtering does not work
>>- or at least, that it will block some of what you want it to, miss
>>quite a bit it should have blocked, and block quite a bit that you don't
>>want it to. (For example: how many content filters allow access to
>>www.virgin.com?)
>
> Whether that is the "general consensus here" or not (which isn't something
> that matters to me), my own real world experience (based on SonicWALL) is that
> it can work well, blocking most of the objectional material with relatively
> little collateral damage. As in most things, different approaches work
> differently, so you can't really generalize. Of course it's never perfect --
> few things are -- but it can nonetheless be valuable.

Okay, shortened things too much. Sorry, see my response upthread.

>>It's a question that comes up often, and, if you had actually searched
>>the archives, you would have known that the response you received is
>>rather typical of these questions in this group.
>
> Your insinuation is uncalled for. I've done my homework.

I'm sorry, I was talking to the OP...
 
>> + false negatives defeat the whole purpose, after all, a couple
>>of pr0n sites is enough.
>
> I disagree. That's like saying it's pointless to lock your door because some
> thieves will break in anyway.

Well, if you *know* some thieves will try to break into your house, and
be willing to expend quite a bit of effort in doing it, buying a weak
lock doesn't do much good. Of course, it's an exaggeration to say it
does not do any good at all - but it is an illusion to believe it will
do more than annoy them a little.

>> + circumventing such a device is usually very possible
>
> Nope -- secured physically and password protected.

I was thinking more about secure http to some form of proxy.

Then again, this might be quite a bit more difficult to do if you don't
have control over some machine outside the firewall.

>>(of course, the fact that very
>>few people ever used such a feature makes it less likely that people
>>will know the answer, anyway - I, personally, don't have half a clue for
>>example). Try the manual.
>
> You're confusing me with the OP -- I'm not having any problems at all.

I am sorry, I was being unclear. I was, sort-of-attempting-to, adding to
your responder to the OP. I am, and was, fully aware of the fact that
there is a difference...

Sorry, bit confused here. I'll try to be clearer next time...

                Joachim
Received on Sat Dec 3 04:18:31 2005