Kids bypassing firewall via web proxy sites

Hm... is this your way to show that you agree with me?

;-)

Yours, VB.

Is it possible to reach

Yours, VB.

So why does IE offer it as a download instead of simply displaying the website? Hint: default misconfiguration

And how do you approve websites?

Just add the application/xhtml+xml MIME type and it will actually display the website.

Better ask what happens if you do a with ActiveX disabled.

What about DNS?

Google?

For sure you would see it, but what about recognizing?

That's not the point!

The workstation queries the internal DNS server and the latter one forwards the target server (and may even preprocess it). The target server returns the reply, the internal server forwards the reply to the workstation.

No direct connection involved. You are using a fully legitimate channel.

It's not impossible to view a correct and harmless website. Especially whereas I have IE appropriately configured.

Yes, but I am limited to viewing the text content of the webpage.

What about it? The content filtering solution I employ could care less as it's designed to filter based upon IP addresses, domain name and if necessary complete URL's.

What about it? The content filtering solution I employ is easily capable of preventing cached Google pages and/or objectionable content the result of a search.

Probably like yourself, I have a fair amount of experience in the content filtering arena so I don't think I'll have any problem. Especially whereas I haven't had any as of yet.

With the current configuration IE prohibits the webpage and all of its content it attempts to display. There is nothing misconfigured about it. I simply do not allow IE to display anything more basic than simple text and images for any web pages that haven't been approved. Such is what prevents the possibility of websites that may offer content deemed insecure.

This website only contains text and one image (the valid "XHTML 1.0 Strict").

This is basically not the point.

At first you simply cannot trust any website that you don't control, so whereever you go your approval doesn't help.

Second that and keep in mind that HTTP is unencrypted. No problem jamming an IE exploit on your line.

For the last: This site does not run any exploit, but contains information and exploit code (as plain text) about still unpatched IE vulnerabilities. You should read and understand it! You should notice that absolutely anything that is not simple text is a big big danger to IE, whatever your configuration might be. CSS is evil, images are evil, even hyperlinks are evil, scripting and ActiveX are super-evil, (I)Frames are evil, Objects are evil, and pretty new: random event handlers! Not to mention that gip/deflate encoding can take down the entire system (because of tight integration of IE).

So far you have to filter away anything except simply formatted text and tables. You might try to filter away potentially dangerous links, but this can also create a DoS condition at the filter level (due to some exploits not following any Chomsky type 3 grammar, so RegExps are not enough).

So what's your explaination that it doesn't work correctly.

You're not, or did you find a new, undocumented way to disable interpretation of Cascading Stylesheets? No? Hoops, there are numerious unpatched exploitable boundary errors in the parser.

Anyway, this is about tunneling. And you've already admitted that you've lost.

Doesn't matter.

But you generally allow Google? Then you've already lost. No need for classification towards objectionable content.

Wrong. One can actually create a provably unrecognizable tunnel.

Even having an idea won't help you. You still won't be able to differ a simply session ID from actual tunneled data transfer when I'm just browsing washingtonpost.com

Oh, nice, then tunneling works.

Yours, VB.

If you want to, we could work together. Feel free to contribute, and of course I will publicize your name if you want to.

Yours, VB.

My configuration of IE prevents all but plain text to any sites not approved of. This is why the page you offered was capable of being displayed and why the other which attempted to do more than just display plain text, was not.