View Full Version : blocking porno sites in protocol control
w.supetran
10-07-2008, 10:38 PM
can you help me? how can I block porno sites in protocol control?
Its not a protocol. Use web filter. HINT - There's already a category for it!!!
BURUGUDUYSTUNSTUGUDUNSTUY
10-09-2008, 09:20 AM
Same here...seems like its not working. Still can access playboy and fhm. I have left the firewall's (and mosts racks') default settings.
Also, Limewire can still connect and I'm not sure on the others.
The meters functioning.
BTW, I'm a newbie.
BURUGUDUYSTUNSTUGUDUNSTUY
10-09-2008, 09:58 AM
More info...Untagle standalone server used as bridge with 2 NICs.
Able to access internet whichever gateway I choose (Router or Untangle).
sky-knight
10-09-2008, 10:56 AM
Then you have it plugged in backwards... flip your cables around and try it again.
BURUGUDUYSTUNSTUGUDUNSTUY
10-10-2008, 11:37 PM
Then you have it plugged in backwards... flip your cables around and try it again.
Wahhh...will try to flip my cables tonight! Thanks and will keep you posted!
BURUGUDUYSTUNSTUGUDUNSTUY
10-11-2008, 09:50 PM
Hi sky-knight! I'm still able to access the suppossedly blocked sites like playboy.com and fhm.com. And I think I am still able to use Limewire. Thanks.
If you go to one of those sites, then try to block it immediately, you already have a session created...that will allow you to continue to pass. If you're not wired backwards, you're either wired wrong on your network or ways for computers to get around Untangle.
Please provide a layout of your network, and a detailed summary of how your cables are connected. If you are unsure of which NIC is external, or internal, disconnect them. Go into the network configuration, then click the interfaces tab (both ext, and int, should show disconnected. Plug one back in, then click refresh, it should change to connected. Pay attention to where you plugged it in so that you know which is which. Do the same for the other one, click refresh. As I mentioned earlier, submit a layout and details of your network so we can help you better.
BURUGUDUYSTUNSTUGUDUNSTUY
10-18-2008, 02:44 AM
Its a simple (basic) network with 192.168.0.1 being the router and everyone is connected to it (I think that is what you call flat network). There are around 55 hosts on our network. Our network has always been a victim of p2p abuse by the employees themselves. I have fought for over a year that we should implement a DC and some sort of firewall/proxy. That idea was always shut down.
Now, I plan to deploy something like this to keep p2p out of the network and without the employees and management knowledge. They always blame the IT if the network is down but is not approving any of the suggestions I have presented them.
Anyways...one card is connected directly to the router (that would be external) and the other on the switch (internal). Seems that that the filters are not working and there are no activity on the status meter. My settings is that the external NIC is 192.168.0.5 and the internal, I set to bridge but that didn't do the trick so I have it set to static as 192.168.0.6 but the net connection has gone awry.
Also, I have retired that idea and resorted to Untangle for Windows instead and works less than perfect. After several days, the server is not showing any activity. But upon restarting the machine itself (WinXP), everything was back to normal.
But if I can have the ISO server to work, it would be great as we are using over 25 computers (the recommended ceiling for UT for Windows). Also, I have a station with 2 NICs and I would like to use it to free on WinXP.
By the way, I have no experience in Linux and firewalling and I found that UT is valuable for the IT in small businesses. Thanks for the great work guys. :worship:
The settings you did with 192.168.0.5 on the outside and .6 on the inside was wrong. Its a bridge with a single IP or a router with an IP on both sides with NAT. It won't be in the same subnet on both sides. Reading all of this is just telling me that Untangle is either not an in-line element on your network, or is an in-line element that is being bypassed by another route. We need a network diagram. Chances are that if you put one together, you will see the problem yourself at that point.
BURUGUDUYSTUNSTUGUDUNSTUY
10-19-2008, 02:50 AM
Thanks mdh for the prompt reply. But before doing it, I have tried to use the bridge option for the internal interface. Come Thursday night, I will again try to use the UT ISO server and will update you guys afterwards.
mdh, may I start another thread if that didn't work? Will be posting our network diagram there.
That is definitely best, and I wish more people would do that. Some threads end up having little or nothing to do with the subject they started out with. When they wander, I want to do something with them to keep them focused but I don't. I only want to be an admin when absolutely necessary. Its not "my" board, it belongs to everyone.