Belkin router parental control feature no longer works

Anyone use the Belkin router's parental control feature? Provided by, I think, 'Cerebian' or somesuch company. It used to work pretty good, now I cant get the login screen or anything.

I click on the 'subscribe to parental control' on the router maintenance page and it does nothing.

I search on Belkin support website and there are no links, cant find the 'Cerebian' or 'Cereberian' or whatever company either.

Is this product now dead? If so, any recommendations for router based filtering? I dont want to install PC based software, would rather have it filtered by the router automagically.

btw, Belkin website search sucks, get more hits from Belkin site starting with google search, than starting with Belkin's own search menu.

Reply to
perfb
Loading thread data ...

Do you use a Proxy Server ?

formatting link
also haven't removed this page from their web site.
formatting link
you have used it before I wouldn't be surprised if your subscription is due as it was only free for 6 months.

Reply to
Rob

Why don't you *personally* monitor your kids web access, ie: look over their shoulder once in a while? If you're such a great parent, why don't you trust your kids (or your wife) online? Haven't you taught them what's good and what's bad? You don't trust them? All this "parental control feature" crap is just that. Crap. If your kids are in junior high, or high school, they *know* how to get around your 'parental control features". These controls are no substitute for actually TALKING TO and GETTING TO KNOW your kids and WHAT THEY ARE INTO.

Maybe it doesn't work because your kids (who are undoubtably smarter than you) have hacked it!

Reply to
dejablues

Good suggestion, but it takes much more than that.

Because they aren't yet mature.

Of course.

Not entirely.

I respectfully disagree.

Not here.

Been there; done that; but it takes much more than that.

Maybe you're overly simplistic and rude.

Reply to
John Navas

While dejablues may have been a little more expressive than necessary, it *is* the general consensus here that content filtering does not work

- or at least, that it will block some of what you want it to, miss quite a bit it should have blocked, and block quite a bit that you don't want it to. (For example: how many content filters allow access to

formatting link

It's a question that comes up often, and, if you had actually searched the archives, you would have known that the response you received is rather typical of these questions in this group.

There are a few points: + technically, it doesn't work (well enough). It's far too difficult to restrain access by 100%. E-mail filters are far more sophisticated, usually, because there's that much more demand - and even those don't come anywhere near to 100% (actually, you can get pretty close, but that requires using a lot of technologies not present in web filtering). + false negatives defeat the whole purpose, after all, a couple of pr0n sites is enough. + false positives are annoying, and will require you to reconfigure the router often, if it allows whitelists at all (I assume it does, though) + circumventing such a device is usually very possible + the premise is flawed - kids will see equally bad stuff on television, when visiting friends, and so on. And the forbidden fruit is always the most attractive.

And probably a couple more; all in all, it's quite likely that you will not receive any helpful responses at all (of course, the fact that very few people ever used such a feature makes it less likely that people will know the answer, anyway - I, personally, don't have half a clue for example). Try the manual.

Joachim

Reply to
jKILLSPAM.schipper

Sorry, I was reading this from the parenting group it was cross-posted to. I actually have no interest in filtering or blocking anything.

Reply to
dejablues

I disagree, a good content filter works fine, but the cheap SOHO units don't have good content filters. I have a WatchGuard Firebox II with a content database filter running on a server, this combination is setup to block 12 of 14 categories of content from all normal users in the network. It's worked fine for years.

The real question is not do you trust your kids, did you teach them well enough, etc.. and it has nothing to do with what they are "in to", it's about knowing what you kids WILL DO when you're not around, knowing about what they do when they think they can get away with something, etc... I don't want to allow most of the CRAP into my home, that's my choice, not my kids choice, as I'm the adult, owner, network owner, I get to make the rules and see that they are followed.

I'm sure that some little kid (or a Democrat) will object, but being a parent takes more than a village, it takes an involved parent that isn't always PC and doesn't always do what the PC types would want.

Reply to
Leythos

Yeah, I realized ~ 0.5 seconds after posting that I had crossposted to umpteen groups. (As I repeat now...). Anyway, this post brought to you from comp.security.firewalls. And your stance is heard on comp.security.firewalls too... though your name did not strike me as familiar. :-/

Me, I am glad not to have any kids. I might someday, but right now my own youth is far too close to be comfortable with the idea.

BTW, I don't see what this has to do with alt.internet.wireless, so I removed it. It *is* somewhat relevant for both misc.kids and comp.security.firewalls, but I suggest we just drop the topic.

Joachim

Reply to
jKILLSPAM.schipper

  1. Monitoring one's kids every minute they're on the Internet isn't feasible for everybody.
  2. Search results often yield unintended results even for well-intentioned and disciplined kids.
  3. Properly implemented parental controls on a capable edge device cannot be bypassed.
  4. Blocking a 10 year old from hardcore p*rn andd racist hate is not about trust. There are some things they shouldn't see until they have matured enough to make proper judgements about it. It's a parent's job to decide what that is. Parental blocks on the Internet are simply a tool to employ to that end.
  5. None of this is intended as a *subsititue* for talking to and getting to know your kids and what they are into. If you think it is, you have a very narrow minded view.

The devices that I deal with, when properly configured, can't be "gotten around", no matter what your skillset, without using an entirely separate Internet feed of some sort.

My trustworthy, informed kids wouldn't try though. Because they understand what the controls are, that they're for their own protection. They feel free to surf around without being watched extremely closely, because they're safe. Plus, they know that I can view full logs of where they've been, should I feel like a spot check-up.

Just because *you* can't figure out how to sensibly deploy parental controls, doesn't mean nobody else can.

-Russ.

Reply to
Somebody.

Whether that is the "general consensus here" or not (which isn't something that matters to me), my own real world experience (based on SonicWALL) is that it can work well, blocking most of the objectional material with relatively little collateral damage. As in most things, different approaches work differently, so you can't really generalize. Of course it's never perfect -- few things are -- but it can nonetheless be valuable.

Your insinuation is uncalled for. I've done my homework.

My own real world experience is that it can be made to work well enough to be useful.

I disagree. That's like saying it's pointless to lock your door because some thieves will break in anyway.

That's just not been a problem here (and yes, the router does support whitelists, as well as blacklists for that matter).

Nope -- secured physically and password protected.

Again, I disagree. That's like saying spam filtering is pointless because some will always get through. It's still worthwhile to block most of the bad stuff even though some may still get through.

Sad that so many people would let their personal biases get in the way of being helpful.

You're confusing me with the OP -- I'm not having any problems at all.

Reply to
John Navas

Yep. I know the problem. My domain is LearnByDestroying.com which I thought would not attract any undue attention. However, I was banned by some content filters as an ultraviolence site due to the term "destroying" in the URL.

It also causes some undue problems with online purchases, where the purchase URL tends to be rather long and include the kitchen sink. One of my clever customers setup an email address something like snipped-for-privacy@example.com to remain anonymous. However, xxx is deemed a sex site. He goes to make his purchase, but because snipped-for-privacy@example.com is in the ultra long URL his browser is sending, the gets a blocked site message. I had the same think happen when I added my last name into the block list just to see what happened. Nothing happened until I tried to make an online purchase.

Note that there is a distinction between content filters and URL blockers. Content filters are installed on the computah and scan both the URL and the words on the web page. URL blockers just look at the requested URL for key words and are usually imbedded in the router firmware.

Of course, the federal government is here to protect us from ourselves with the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA or CHIPA).

formatting link
it a requirement for libraries that receive federal money to install content filtering. It is my understanding that the local libraries consider it a waste of time and effort.

I've been installing and repairing computah systems since 1983 and have seen very few applications of content filters and URL blocks that were successfully used for more than a few weeks.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

the Cerebrian (sp?) filtering service actually worked quite well, in contradiction to all the knowitalls here, I would be happy to just get it working again, but it seems to be dead. I am just wondering if anyone else is currently using it.

Reply to
perfb

If you put the proper meta tags in your header it will not ban you.

Reply to
Leythos

In comp.security.firewalls Leythos wrote: content database filter running on a server, this combination is setup

Ok, you are right - in fact, that's just what I snipped before posting as it became a little lengthy otherwise.

A web content filter can be as good as a spam filter or thereabouts, and (very) good spam filters will catch almost everything. Plus websites are less likely to be full of attempts to evade detection, as web filtering is not that common.

Joachim

P.S. Limited to comp.security.firewalls, it's quite off topic elsewhere.

Reply to
jKILLSPAM.schipper

Okay, shortened things too much. Sorry, see my response upthread.

I'm sorry, I was talking to the OP...

Well, if you *know* some thieves will try to break into your house, and be willing to expend quite a bit of effort in doing it, buying a weak lock doesn't do much good. Of course, it's an exaggeration to say it does not do any good at all - but it is an illusion to believe it will do more than annoy them a little.

I was thinking more about secure http to some form of proxy.

Then again, this might be quite a bit more difficult to do if you don't have control over some machine outside the firewall.

I am sorry, I was being unclear. I was, sort-of-attempting-to, adding to your responder to the OP. I am, and was, fully aware of the fact that there is a difference...

Sorry, bit confused here. I'll try to be clearer next time...

Joachim

Reply to
jKILLSPAM.schipper

Mostly me, sorry...

Are you still paying? I vaguely recall reading somewhere that this service is paid by the month, or somesuch, and does not include an unlimited license with the router.

Joachim

P.S. Restricted to comp.security.firewalls, as this is purely technical.

Reply to
jKILLSPAM.schipper

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.