Arfur wrote:
<snipped>
<The Host file is a poor solution, and basically, only a home user type
such as yourself would try to implement. You and your boss need to be
terminated.>
Arfur wrote:
<snipped>
<The Host file is a poor solution, and basically, only a home user type
such as yourself would try to implement. You and your boss need to be
terminated.>
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:28:01 -0700, Arfur wrote:
> Leythos wrote:
>
>> If you boss won't pay for anything with a base as large as your, well, the
>> hosts file updates/maintenance will cost more than the firewill and
>> provides a BETTER ability to protect the network/users. Your host file is
>> of limited value and does nothing to protect your network from new or
>> other methods of access.
>
> But I want to choke off the traffic at its source, thus preserving not
> just bandwidth, but the processing on the IPSO firewalls, which is
> already running high enough.
>
> If the IE browser simply never sends the requests, then the network
> has no work to do EITHER serving up the crap OR detecting it as crap
> and following the rulebase you've set.
>
> This is worth doing on those desktops which spend all day every day
> surfing the web - less than 2% of PCs which seem to generate a very
> sizable proportion of all the daily HTTP traffic.
> It's not worth doing anywhere else.
>
> I also made some DNS poison entries to nail the big stupid domains
> that do the browser add-on bars and stupid useless stuff like date-
> manager.
> Additionally, I knackered Yahoo Messenger, MSN messenger, Skype and
> all that kind of crap which people waste their time playing with at
> work.
What you seem to miss is that the central administration point, the fact
that different users can have different access at the same computer, the
fact that once people learn they can't, that they will stop trying, that
central administration is much better.
I'll stick with our simple solution, that works at many levels that your
host file doesn't.
--
Want to know what PCBUTTS1 is really about?
*** WARNING - these links contain foul/pornographic content of an
abusive nature created by PCBUTTS1 and still hosted on his public
website ***
http://www.pcbutts1.com/rlk/rlk.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/license.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/max.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/mpv.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/wtcpcb.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/cracks.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/Louthe*******.htm
All while spamming his company website at: http://www.seedsv.com
Arfur wrote:
> EMB wrote:
>> Arfur wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, gee, I guess I'll go out and spend $10k on such an appliance...
>
>> IPCop, Cop+ and any half-decent old PC with a couple of NICs in it and
>> you have a bloody good content filtering firewall that will runreliably
>> and need NO changes to any of the client PCs.
>
> yeah, right, I'll just go and bodge some PC up as a pretend-server and
> bang it in-line with the clustered CHeckpoint firewalls......suuure,
> that'll go down really well.
FFS - if you've got decent FW-1s just add the content filtering licence
to them - in the grand scheme of things it's a small extra cost and
removes any liability from you if your hosts file bodge opens the
company to legal action.
EMB wrote:
> FFS - if you've got decent FW-1s just add the content filtering licence
> to them - in the grand scheme of things it's a small extra cost and
Sure - but the Boss won't spend any more cents. It's a pain in the
arse.
> removes any liability from you if your hosts file bodge opens the
> company to legal action.
We're not in the US, I can do anything I want with my bandwidth -
blocking advertisers is perfectly within my rights (although, as you
say, in the US this could create a nightmare for me if I was rash
enough to let an advertiser know what I was doing....stupid american
legal system with its SLAPPs).
Arfur wrote:
>
> We're not in the US, I can do anything I want with my bandwidth -
> blocking advertisers is perfectly within my rights (although, as you
> say, in the US this could create a nightmare for me if I was rash
> enough to let an advertiser know what I was doing....stupid american
> legal system with its SLAPPs).
I was actually thinking from the other end - some dumb **** that works
for the organisation gets fired for surfing porn (despite your best
efforts) and then claims that the dismissal is unfair because he wasn't
protected from the prohibited content.
Arfur the *clown* some kind of a cross posting nut with a Host bug up
his butt wrote:
>
> in the US this could create a nightmare for me if I was rash
> enough to let an advertiser know what I was doing....stupid american
> legal system with its SLAPPs).
>
This about says it all about this *clown*, which he is becoming quite
the teething little lunatic.
In comp.security.firewalls Arfur <arthur_brain1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hunter01 wrote:
>> Speaking as someone who supervises IT officers in an environment with
>> close to 3,000 PC's, I'd tear strips out of someone who wasted their
>> time on that sort of thing,
>
> Copying a hosts file to 100 or so PCs takes a few minutes - hardly a
> waste of time.
Cross-checking every entry in that file takes a tad bit more than a few
minutes and most definitely *is* a waste of time. And yes, you need to
do that checking, because otherwise you'd leave control over which sites
your user can or cannot access to someone outside your company. Which is
something no sane sysadmin would want to do.
cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich
Arfur wrote:
>
> The people who hang out in this group seem to be under some
> misapprehension that a normal, real-world corporate network is crammed
> with hackers.
>
> It isn't.
>
> Everybody has their own job and very few of them have any particular
> interest in computers - if one or two of them are hackers, I'm not
> going to waste time chasing them down, the other 11,000 have stopped
> wasting bandwidth by accessing ad servers.
That would assume their interested enough in computers to spend all
their time wasting bandwidth, and a company with 11,000 employees could
afford to get a real solution (and real bandwidth) as opposed to pumping
out a hosts file that doesn't account for a drop in the ocean of rubbish
sites out there!
On 15 Mar 2007 19:55:50 -0700, "Arfur" <arthur_brain1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Nobody's suggesting you spend two days - just copy a list to a Hosts
>file - very efficient and very effective.
Thus spake someone who has never experienced the hell of hosts files.
Hosts files are neither efficient or effective.
They *are* a complete PITA.
They *are* a nightmare to maintain.
They *are* a support migraine.
--
?Ħaah, los gringos otra vez!?
"Greg Hennessy" <me@privacy.org> wrote in message
news:5i8lv2t1ph9g74rhiotjd1f4j8mg236pti@4ax.com...
> On 15 Mar 2007 19:55:50 -0700, "Arfur" <arthur_brain1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Nobody's suggesting you spend two days - just copy a list to a Hosts
>>file - very efficient and very effective.
>
> Thus spake someone who has never experienced the hell of hosts files.
>
> Hosts files are neither efficient or effective.
>
> They *are* a complete PITA.
>
> They *are* a nightmare to maintain.
>
> They *are* a support migraine.
> --
> ?Ħaah, los gringos otra vez!?
Well, they're convienient for a single user who can turn them on or off as
needed. Then again, if you are a single user you can just get Opera and
bypass most of the fuss by default.
cmsix
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote