Re: Anti-spyware at the Gateway



Somebody. <somebody.@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I doubt that. If one single site remains reachable, which supports
proxying or even inline gatewaying, then this will not work at all.
And there are so many sites, that it is very unlikely, that whitelist
filtering in such a way will ever work.
They are, in fact, blocked. If one gets through, it would be through an
event such as getting noticed and categorized one way and changing content
afterwards.

Ridiculous. How should one update this category system if it should ever
work seemlessly?

But as soon as you tried more than a few of "so many sites" and
got repeated blocks in that very special category, your machine would be on
watch from other means, and would subsequently be caught doing such
activities.

I doubt that, because it's very easy to even set up new sites again and
again.

There is no such thing like a categorization of harmless web sites.
Why not?

Because, how do you want to decide, what's harmless, what you don't know.
Again, this results in a complete whitelist schema, and this means losing
connection to the open network again.

Perhaps you should examine Websense. There is indeed such a thing.
Your saying it doesn't exist, doesn't make that so.

I don't say, that Websense does not exists. Of course it exists. And of
course it has the same problems like everything like that has, because
those problems are by concept.

"Don't try to solve social problems with technical means. It will not
work."
One might argue that you are trying to solve a technical problem with social
means. :-)

Don't think so. The problem, that you're not trusting in your own staff
definitely is a social problem.

Yours,
VB.
--
Wenn Du "Ich sehe die Mathematik als einzigen Bereich an, wo es klare
Beweise gibt." und "Ich fuehle mich in einem Anzug unwohl." als Aussagen
mit aequivalentem Meinungsinhalt betrachtest, hast Du mit Deinem Gleichnis
recht. (Michail Bachmann zu Thomas Wallutis in d.a.s.r)
.