North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK)

  • From: Leigh Porter
  • Date: Thu Jun 07 15:33:16 2007

Sean Donelan wrote:

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
Its not "content" blocking, its source/destination blocking.

oh, so null routes? I got the impression it was application-aware, or atleast port-aware... If it's proxying or doing anything more than port-level blocking it's likely it sees content as well, or COULD.

Either way, it's not like it's effective for anything except the m ost
casual of users :(

Its more than null routes, but not much more. The router does a re-route on a list of network/IP address, and then for the protocols the redirector
box understands (i.e. pretty much only HTTP) it matches part of the application/URL pattern.

So IWF can block only one part of a sub-tree of a popular shared webhosting site *IF* is one of a few application protocols.

Sorry, clicked send before finishing.

BUT the important thing is the network operator and routers don't actually look at the content. If the same bad content (picture, video, whatever) appears somewhere else that isn't on the IWF list, it won't be blocked.

And likewise if the content at the source/destination changes/removed, e.g. the picture disappears, the destination will continue to be blocked until IWF updates their bad list even though nothing bad still at the destination.

But this is OK as it's unlikely that something good and wholesome will be on http://n.n.n.n/foobardodgypr0n.html

Also the lists are actually updated fairly regularly.

Leigh Porter