Your IP:

Our Forums Have Moved!

Visit our new forums at http://community.opendns.com/forums/ to post on topics and read the latest content. These forums are now read-only archives.

K-12 Forums

Talk with other K-12 network administrators in your state.

Or see all states.

Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 30 days, and is thus closed.
    • CommentAuthorjmoseby
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2011 edited
     permalink
    The domain 'googleusercontent.com' was SUBMITTED and APPROVED by fatts as a proxy/anonymizer. I have a problem with this.

    1) No one should be able to submit AND approve their own entries. It should ALWAYS be reviewed and approved by SOMEONE ELSE. This is common sense. Allowing a user to approve his own entries is just bad policy.

    2) Who in their right mind would classify Google's cache server as a proxy/anonymizer?

    3) Who in their right mind would grant APPROVAL RIGHTS to someone who thinks Google's cache server is a proxy/anonymizer?

    This is the SECOND TIME I have had to come here to complain about ignorance and complacency in the submittal/approval process for domain blocking. For those with approval powers, PLEASE educate yourself on the categories, and PLEASE at least VISIT the site in question to verify the category BEFORE approving it. If there isn't a category that sufficiently describes a domain, request a new category to be added.
    Thankful People: elisearle
    • CommentAuthorjmoseby
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2011
     permalink
    As a side issue, since I NEED to be able to get to this domain, I've added 'googleusercontent.com' and 'webcache.googleusercontent.com' to my whitelist almost an hour ago, and I still am blocked from accessing them, even though it tells me they'll be released in 3 minutes when I add them.

    ...OpenDNS is going to lose a customer and an advocate if this continues.
    • CommentAuthorzelus
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2011 edited
     permalink
    >>"I've added 'googleusercontent.com' and 'webcache.googleusercontent.com' to my whitelist almost an hour ago, and I still am blocked from accessing them, even though it tells me they'll be released in 3 minutes when I add them."

    jmoseby, please flush your web browser caches and your current filtering settings will take immediate effect: http://www.opendns.com/support/article/67

    We're looking into the tags for the domain now.
    • CommentAuthorjmoseby
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2011 edited
     permalink
    zelus: As per your suggestion, flushing the browser cache allowed me to once again access the domain. Thanks.

    Curious, 24 hours have elapsed since your last message, and no change has been made to the tags for the domain in question. Is there some argument in favor of leaving them unchanged?

    I am a bit surprised 'fats' has not stopped by to defend his decision to tag and approve this mis-categorization. I'd be interested to know his reasoning behind the decision. I imagine he has some users in his network using google's cache to browse sites that would otherwise be blocked. And so maybe 'proxy' is the closest category to what he is seeing happen.

    Perhaps a 'web cache' category should be added.
    • CommentAuthorrotblitz
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2011 edited
     permalink
    "Is there some argument in favor of leaving them unchanged?"

    webcache.googleusercontent.com is categorized as Proxy/Anonymizer, because it can be (and effectively is) used as such. So, what's wrong with this?
    http://domain.opendns.com/webcache.googleusercontent.com

    "I've added 'googleusercontent.com'"

    This was needed in no way. This is "Not yet decided in any categories".
    http://domain.opendns.com/googleusercontent.com
    You can safely remove it from your "never block" list.
    Thankful People: fatts
    •  
      CommentAuthorfatts
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2011
     permalink
    Administrator
    "webcache.googleusercontent.com is categorized as Proxy/Anonymizer, because it can be (and effectively is) used as such."

    Couldn't have said it better myself.

    @jmoseby I'm sorry if this issue created an inconvenience for you, but it sounds like you've successfully figured out how to work around it. I'll consider discussing the possibility of adding a 'webcache' category with my team in the near future.
    • CommentAuthorelisearle
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2011 edited
     permalink
    Ditto to jmoseby, My concept of a proxy/anonymizer would be in the realm of:

    Aniscartujo
    Free Web Proxy
    Schoolisgood.com
    Hidemy.biz
    Dumbdream.com
    Nobodycanstop.us
    Enoughschool.com
    Getus.in
    Browse007.com
    Surfagain

    While the google cache may technically be able to circumvent some filtering software it is simply a cache. It doesn't give the user the ability surf youtube or dynamic websites. I agree with jmiseby that this should be categorized as something else.

    The average user would select proxy/anonymizer thinking they are blocking users from circumventing their entire surfing habits. If a user is creative enough to use the google cache to get around opendns, they would have also found a way to not use opendns as their dns server. Either by arp poisoning, hacking the registery to change their dns servers etc...

    All this really does is make our users say, "Hey that filter thingy you use stinks! Why would it block google?"

    Kind of hard for me to explain to non-technical users that someone named fatts thought it posed a risk. They just laughed with a disgusted look.
    • CommentAuthorrotblitz
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2011
     permalink
    "Ditto to jmoseby, My concept of a proxy/anonymizer would be in the realm of:..."

    You forgot webcache.googleusercontent.com in the list. :wink:

    "It doesn't give the user the ability surf youtube or dynamic websites."

    Almost all web proxies don't. They are simply to slow or unintelligent for this.
    This is what they have in common too - with Google cache...

    "If a user is creative enough to use the google cache to get around opendns, they would have also found a way to not use opendns as their dns server. Either by arp poisoning, hacking the registery to change their dns servers etc..."

    No, not if they are not admins on their computers. (Really, they shouldn't be! Or, if they own their computers, port 53 passthrough may need to be blocked at router level. Then the mentioned way around attempts and hacks cannot succeed. All up to you.)

    "All this really does is make our users say..."

    Well, I think this tagging was a community decision, a question of majority. So I can't imagine that this is common sense:

    "Hey that filter thingy you use stinks! Why would it block google?"

    It doesn't block Google, not at all, just the cache, and only if you selected Proxy/Anonymizer *and* didn't add webcache.googleusercontent.com to your "never block" list. It's totally up to you. So feel free to set it up as you like it. It's really *you*, not OpenDNS!

    "Kind of hard for me to explain to non-technical users that someone named fatts thought it posed a risk. They just laughed with a disgusted look."

    Yes, let the explanation resistent users laugh. They don't know what they're doing, anyway. But you know how to configure it now, so no point for *your* users to laugh. Right?

    So what? What's your point? Not being able to configure it how you want it?

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 30 days, and is thus closed.