Thanks Andy for this interesting post.
("Destroying the internet", "STASI" etc, on the other hand... give me a
break).The goal of a layer 4+ (above layer 4) filtering device is to refine the granularity at the full URI level, not just the domain name. So the blocking of archive child porn could be implemented with a regexp in a white box, if the guys building the blacklist take the time to do so. The drawback beeing it (the whitebox) may become a neat target and tool for intruders: a tcpdump on steroid on your backbone, waiting to be hacked, to start inject /32 in your BGP mesh, deviating traffic, and looking for unencrypted password, emails, etc. About the sensitivity and subjectivity of whoever compile the blacklist, for sure, it will always be a topic of flamewar. Regards. On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Andy Davidson <a...@nosignal.org> wrote: > > On 15 Jan 2009, at 19:08, Silvan Gebhardt wrote: > > > I just read about the blocking of archive.org (which is for me an > > ususal site(!) > > ( > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Britische-Jugendschuetzer-lassen-Internet-Archiv-blockieren--/meldung/121754 > > ) is one source, which refers to > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/14/iwf_details_archive_blacklisting/ > > Hi, > > The IWF in the UK 'blocked' Wikipedia recently because of the > portrayal of cover art from a 1970s LP record on their website. > > Information about this is here. > > https://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=821 > > You may find this interesting, if you found the above story interesting. > > Thanks > Andy > _______________________________________________ > swinog mailing list > swinog@lists.swinog.ch > http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog >
_______________________________________________ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
