Hi list,
Has anyone here use SquidGuard for their Squid proxy running in CentOS4.4 to block list of bad sites? Is the RPM available using yum? Any feedback using this software appreciated. Thank you very much.
junji linux registered user #253162
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
You have squidguard and squidguard-blacklists packages availables from Dag's repo (rpmforge). The SquidGuard documentation is good and you can get it in the project's homesite: http://squidguard.shalla.de/
Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
You have squidguard and squidguard-blacklists packages availables from Dag's repo (rpmforge). The SquidGuard documentation is good and you can get it in the project's homesite: http://squidguard.shalla.de/
Hmm. Last I knew it was squidguard.org. I'm glad it's been adopted; it wasn't so bad while the blacklists were being maintained.
My technique's been reactive: block the kids' favourite sites. I was pretty amazed at chessgames, but we let that one stand: you would not expect any chess players amongst our students.
btw One can also block stuff in Squid. We have a blanket ban on receiving video and music, as determined by the respones headers.
Hi list,
Has anyone here use SquidGuard for their Squid proxy running in CentOS4.4 to block list of bad sites? Is the RPM available using yum? Any feedback using this software appreciated. Thank you very much.
junji
You also have http://dansguardian.org which is a very powerful blocker, and also scans all pages for bad words. Therefore it works much better than only relying on blocklists. It also exists as RPM for CentOS 4. Free for non commercial use only. Give it a try!
dan1 wrote:
Hi list,
Has anyone here use SquidGuard for their Squid proxy running in CentOS4.4 to block list of bad sites? Is the RPM available using yum? Any feedback using this software appreciated. Thank you very much.
junji
You also have http://dansguardian.org which is a very powerful blocker, and also scans all pages for bad words. Therefore it works much better than only relying on blocklists. It also exists as RPM for CentOS 4. Free for non commercial use only. Give it a try!
I evaluated dansguardian and found it interferred to much with _my_ browsing, which I don't think anyone would find objectionable. The problem with blocking on bad words is that whether they're objectional depends on the context: calling a file a bastard is perfectly correct, calling your friend a bastard, even a black bastard might be okay, but you would rightly be offended if I said you are. Even if your paresnts are unmarried.
And then there cultural differences; I once described someone as, like me, being penurious and he was highly offended. The head meaning I found in an American dictionary doesn't even appear in at least one common dictionary here.
So "bastard" and "penurious" may be in Dan's dictionary of bad words, and if so I've probably used enough bad words for this document to be cesored by DansGuardian.
Then there are those who might be offended at being called a dog, a monkey, a swine, a dingo, a bum.
I've decided fron-ending google to enforce safe search and blocking other popular search enginss such as Yahoo, Microsoft will do for limiting the subjects one can research. Now, if our kids search for sex they'll find socially-accepted information about sex; searching for horticultural info won't return responses directed to pot, coco and such.
Chat rooms are still a problem. We block them as we find them.
the nice thing about DG is it's flexibility. You can whitelist your pc and leave the others filtered..or setup your pc to be in a less stringent group. I would re-evaluate the full power of DG..<G>
John Summerfield wrote:
dan1 wrote:
Hi list,
Has anyone here use SquidGuard for their Squid proxy running in CentOS4.4 to block list of bad sites? Is the RPM available using yum? Any feedback using this software appreciated. Thank you very much.
junji
You also have http://dansguardian.org which is a very powerful blocker, and also scans all pages for bad words. Therefore it works much better than only relying on blocklists. It also exists as RPM for CentOS 4. Free for non commercial use only. Give it a try!
I evaluated dansguardian and found it interferred to much with _my_ browsing, which I don't think anyone would find objectionable. The problem with blocking on bad words is that whether they're objectional depends on the context: calling a file a bastard is perfectly correct, calling your friend a bastard, even a black bastard might be okay, but you would rightly be offended if I said you are. Even if your paresnts are unmarried.
And then there cultural differences; I once described someone as, like me, being penurious and he was highly offended. The head meaning I found in an American dictionary doesn't even appear in at least one common dictionary here.
So "bastard" and "penurious" may be in Dan's dictionary of bad words, and if so I've probably used enough bad words for this document to be cesored by DansGuardian.
Then there are those who might be offended at being called a dog, a monkey, a swine, a dingo, a bum.
I've decided fron-ending google to enforce safe search and blocking other popular search enginss such as Yahoo, Microsoft will do for limiting the subjects one can research. Now, if our kids search for sex they'll find socially-accepted information about sex; searching for horticultural info won't return responses directed to pot, coco and such.
Chat rooms are still a problem. We block them as we find them.
William Warren wrote:
the nice thing about DG is it's flexibility. You can whitelist your pc and leave the others filtered..or setup your pc to be in a less stringent group. I would re-evaluate the full power of DG..<G>
It seems I lacked clarity: my point is that the rules are too stringent and restrict perfectly innocent browsing. Almost any longish document will contain enough bad words to be blocked, especially if it contains current teen-speak.
interesting. I am not having that issue on my DG based system. One the major tweaks is the naughtiness factor. I run mine here @300 and that strikes a good balance. at another client i run it @250. yet another client @340. This is in addition to all of the other tweaks. It may not work for you but so far i have yet to find anything with the ability tob e so readily custom tailored..<G>
John Summerfield wrote:
William Warren wrote:
the nice thing about DG is it's flexibility. You can whitelist your pc and leave the others filtered..or setup your pc to be in a less stringent group. I would re-evaluate the full power of DG..<G>
It seems I lacked clarity: my point is that the rules are too stringent and restrict perfectly innocent browsing. Almost any longish document will contain enough bad words to be blocked, especially if it contains current teen-speak.
William Warren wrote:
interesting. I am not having that issue on my DG based system. One the major tweaks is the naughtiness factor. I run mine here @300 and that strikes a good balance. at another client i run it @250. yet another client @340. This is in addition to all of the other tweaks. It may not work for you but so far i have yet to find anything with the ability tob e so readily custom tailored..<G>
It may also have improved since I dismissed it (on Debian/Woody) a while back. I may have another look in Etch.
For those who don't know, in Debian "Stable" includes the meaning "unchanging" wrt the software selection, only security problems get fixed. selinux was in Woody, didn't work and Debian refused to fix it.
Edgy is the next release, due out December 2006.
It seems I lacked clarity: my point is that the rules are too stringent and restrict perfectly innocent browsing. Almost any longish document will contain enough bad words to be blocked, especially if it contains current teen-speak.
It's a well-know problem about the using of regular expressions as a basis of blocked sites. I can read the next from SquidGuard documentation:
--- Unless you build your expressions very very carefully there is a high risk you will have annoyed users on your neck. Typically you might accidentally block "Essex", "Sussex", "breastcancer", "www.x.org" etc. in your eagerness for blocking pornographic material. In practice you would probably replace some of the words in the example above with some more clearly pornographic related words that I don't find appropriate to list here. ----
So if you use regexp you should be aware of that.
:-/
-
dan1 -
John Summerfield -
Jordi Espasa Clofent -
Jun Salen -
William Warren