[AusNOG] Web filter a runaway success: Exetel

[Andrew Cox]

I'd hazard a guess that the 20,000 hits were connections from extel's 
router across the tunnel to the watchguard server for the 198 filtered IP's.
This however wouldn't mean they were banned content, just that people 
accessed content that was on an IP with /some/ banned content.
(For all we know one of the blocked urls could've been a picture on 
wikipedia etc: if this was the case all traffic for that one server 
passes via the watchdog server and only the prohibited url gets blocked)

I explained and linked the original extel explanation of the filter 
here: 
http://techwiredau.com/2009/05/extel-conclude-isp-level-filtering-feasible/comment-page-1/#comment-9035

Regards,
Andrew Cox
AccessPlus HNA

Colwell, Scott wrote:
> I'd be interested in knowing whether the "20,000 hits against a
> blacklist
> of alleged child porn Web sites" is just 'DOS backscatter' or whether it
> is
> actual port 80 with a http GET to the actual URL?
>
> And even then, malware like conficker generates this sort of traffic...
>
> Scott
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net 
>> [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Kai
>> Sent: Tuesday, 5 May 2009 9:03 AM
>> To: ausnog at ausnog.net
>> Subject: [AusNOG] Web filter a runaway success: Exetel
>>
>> I'm sure there's more to it than this?!
>>
>> Web filter a runaway success: Exetel
>> http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/301839/web_filter_runa
>> way_success_exetel
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>     

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20090505/c4abf330/attachment.html>