[3608] in WWW Security List Archive
Message not deliverable
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Administrator_at_~BMI__INFO__SYS@b)
Fri Nov 22 12:06:22 1996
From: Administrator_at_~BMI__INFO__SYS@battelle.org
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 09:16:31 -0500 (EST)
To: www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
Henry Lim Chee Wee wrote:
>
> Perhaps I would need to clarify the situation here.
> My question was posted over the www-security mailing list
> because of a genuine concern regarding public access.
> The machines to be fitted with the website restricted access
> software ( or accessed the Internet through a proxy server
> and/or firewall ) are not meant for adults working within
> an organisation. It's for pubic access areas (i.e. Libraries)
> where both adults and children mingle freely.
>
Dear Mr. Wee,
There are tens of thousands of web sites with questionable
content, and I don't see how each one can be restricted until
someone has reviewed each site and made a determination as to
acceptability based on local laws. Provided you were given a
list of I.P.'s that have been somehow "pre-qualified" or
pre-determined to be unsuitable in content for children, then
to my knowledge most web-proxy servers can block users from
having these banned I.P.'s delivered by the web-proxy to their
workstations. My advice is to search the Internet for books
specifically addressing your server. For example, if you have
the Apache server, there are some excellent books found at
http://www.amazon.com, one of the largest Internet booksellers.
Simply search under key-words "Apache" and "server."
> The main concern here is porno sites. I am sure adults like you
> and me are fully capable of getting whatever information we will
> like by whatever means possible. And I can tell you that most
> porno sites in the Internet has no security whatsoever. Even
> the $$$ charging farce is poorly done (which means that teenagers
> and children can bypass it if they do not want to pay).
>
I'm still puzzled as to who is deciding which sites qualify as
"porn" and how this effort is being undertaken? This is probably
the one obstacle to banning sites, because you first have to know
what sites qualify as "unsuitable" content. Playboy is an easy
target for most countries, but other sites can be accidentally
stumbled upon that aren't on the proxy's list of banned I.P.'s.
> We have a responsibility towards the youngsters. Don't tell me
> that a picture of a naked woman in suggestive pose is free information
> and everyone has the right to ogre at it. There are possibilities
> to access such stuffs in Singapore, be it from BBS, pressed cd-roms,
> pirated video-cds,LDs,video cassettes, smuggled x-rated magazines, ftp
> sites and the web sites. All I wanted to do is to reduce this
> possibility, if only through the web.
>
This is a commendable effort on your part, although unpopular and
likely to get you some flames (and myself for agreeing publicly
with you here). The unfortunate part is that kids tend to find
ways around tamper-proof solutions.
> Just for your info, we have a firewall in place for them
> (everyone is asking for one, *sigh*) and a proxy server as well.
> But they are asking for something more to ease their minds and
> hence my question.
>
I almost deleted my email when getting to this point, because
had I known they were asking for more than technology is capable
of delivering, I would have withheld comment. Oh well, I'll send
it anyway, with the comment that if configuring your proxy is not
sufficient for them, then nothing that I know about is.
--
___
| ._ _ ._ _.._ _ ``I do not fear computers
_|_| |(_|| (_|| | | I fear lack of them.'' -Isaac Asimov
_____ _| _______________________________________________________
Key fingerprint: 93 E1 15 E6 35 BC B2 84 B2 7B 39 76 29 72 32 72
[Signature lettering created by ``Figlet Ascii Font Converter''
http://mediacube.datacom.de/cgi-bin/moniteurs/figlet]
